< 14 September	16 September >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kpg jhp jm 04:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Republican Party of Labour and Justice[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

1) the article does not show the significance and importance of the party. 2) the article does not refer to external, authoritative, independent media. 3) the article has an advertising, news, non-analytical, non-detailed character. The article contains original research. The article deceives the reader and misleads the reader. by rules, the article needs to be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.72.210.210 (talk) 09:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Cleanup this AfD Hhkohh (talk) 15:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep party has won seats at both national and local level. It should be improved but it is clearly a notable topic.--TM 15:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nom has discussed some problems with the article but there is no dispute about the notability. Kraose (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not really seeing most the problems the IP author of the nom has claimed to exist in the article. No question about the notability either - has 3/110 seats in the national parliament. The article should be improved though - most sentences are unsourced and most of the refs are not from independent outlets. Openlydialectic (talk) 16:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Here's a google books search for the russian-language name of the party [1]. As you can see by the number of books in the query, there's clearly enough scholarship on the topic which means there's both notability for the article and accessible means of improving the article. Openlydialectic (talk) 16:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep having multiple members in a national parliament clearly demonstrates "significance and importance", even in Belarus. The article needs improvement, not deletion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please read WP:BEFORE before you nominate another article. The article needs improvement but clearly passes NORG having won election at multiple levels of government, you can't say there's never coverage about this and that satisfies WP:NEXIST. It also seems your attempt to delete it at ru-wiki is not successful.. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A political party with representation on multiple levels of government is self-evidently notable. AusLondonder (talk) 09:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 09:39, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Service record of Reinhard Heydrich[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An unneeded content fork & indiscriminate collection of information; key milestones of the subject's career are already included in the main article. Appears to be mostly WP:OR. Created by Special:Contributions/OberRanks currently site-banned for fabricating content and sources. For more info, please see ANI:OberRanks_and_fabricated_sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cf: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Service record of Heinrich Himmler. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparently created from the main article and expanded with much unsourced information. There is much in this article which does not relate to its subject, allegedly the collection of official SS documents maintained at the SS Personnel Main Office in Berlin from 1934 until the fall of Nazi Germany in 1945 (first sentence). The chapter on possible late war assignments even refers to Documents recovered from Heinrich Himmler's personal journals, as well as draft orders from the SS-Hauptamt, and thus demonstrates, that the subject is not Heydrich's actual service record, but Heydrich himself. Therefore the article falls under WP:COATRACK and WP:POVFORK.--Assayer (talk) 11:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have thought about it further and agree with deletion. For one, I don't care to wade through it and try to save parts (and RS cite them), which do pertain to his service record and awards for a valid sub-article. And it is mostly covered in the main GA article. I will look through it briefly (later) to see what may be transferred, if anything, into the main article when I can before it is deleted. Of course for anything I may transfer, I will find RS cites to use. Kierzek (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a POV fork of Reinhard Heydrich by an author with a history of misrepresenting sources. I don't think any of the material in this version of the article needs to be merged back, but could be convinced some of it should be restored. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or Merge with Reinhard Heydrich) -- Heyrich is unquestionably notable, but I am not seeing a bunch of secondary sources devoted to his service record. I would not expect that for any soldier, no matter how notable. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:49, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 09:40, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical cyclones in 2018[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article reeks of WP:SYNTH and at best marginally meets WP:GNG. While there are some worldwide metrics like global ACE, I don't see anything here that can't be covered in season articles for individual basins. Also, this is highly misleading as we do not use the Australian scale worldwide (thus making its use in the eastern Pacific and Atlantic, as well as the north Indian Ocean, pure original research), and the southern hemisphere season is not aligned with the northern hemisphere's. Jasper Deng (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This provides a global summary of the monthly and yearly activity throughout the world that would not have been available otherwise. Additionally, we are discussing what caused/prohibited tropical cyclone formation around the world and the effects of tropical cyclones in general. This page was also planned to be the place to have miscellaneous storms that we didn't know where to place otherwise. Also, we had a discussion back in July (for an article of another year) about the scale in WPTC and decided on the Australian scale. This was applied to all the tables as having several scales would be extremely confusing. If people really wanted to, the scale and intensity could be removed from the monthly tables and notes added for wind speeds stating whether they are 1, 3 or 10 minute. For the wind speeds, they were converted using this from the World Meterological Organization and a document from the NHC (I am searching for it). The southern hemisphere not being aligned with the northern is completely irrelevant. Yes they overlap, but that doesn't really matter. This article is about TCs in 2018. The only things relevant are the conditions, storms formed, deaths, damages, and effects from the beginning of 2018 until the end. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 22:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article is being fixed... Please give me some time before making further arguments. Thanks, Figfires^{Send me a message!} 23:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Jasper Deng: The WP:SYNTH you mentioned was removed in a massive facelift last night. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 18:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - This is an article that is worth investing time in developing, since it will eventually provide a global overview of the tropics for readers that are interested without having too browse through 7 different season articles to find out about stuff like how many deaths per year or ENSO which had an impact on all basins. Also I am a big fan of using the Australian scale within the article since it is a global scale that can be applied to storms in most of the basins without having to resort converting the windspeeds to 10-minutes or use completely unofficial data from the JTWC who do not even rate on the SSHWS. I also note that NOAA provides a tropical cyclone summuary each year within their state of the climate report and who knows maybe this article could be spinned out to cover some of the more global weather impacts such as the Indian Monsoon or an overview of the European Windstorm season.Jason Rees (talk) 23:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Jasper is right. Using the Australian scale is OR and thus why I am removing it from the page. There will simply be no scale used period. I found a solution for the timeline as well so it may stay. 10 minute winds will not be noted since 4 basins use it. 3 and 1 minute winds will get notes. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 23:37, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than removing scales altogether, why not simply use the appropriate scale for each basin (and link to the Tropical cyclone scales article for reference) in place of the Australian scale currently in use? For the record, I do think this article has its place and oppose the deletion. — Iune talk 23:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this has received significant news coverage. If it does not go here, it could go in WikiNews, but my guess is that Wikipedia has far more readers than WikiNews. Vorbee (talk) 07:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This article has been worked hard on, and people could benefit from this. We just need to fix it up. Derpdadoodle (talk) 18:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created a VERY similar article last year and it was taken down. It is here now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:INFOWeather1/sandbox INFOWeather1 (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- We can have a look at recreating that article and making it a lot better once the future of this article is clearer. However, that was taken down after an AFD that you as the author and several others didnt partcipate in. I also note that it was 3 monthly rather than yearly, which makes more sense imo.Jason Rees (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the information in the article in question is unnecessary, considering we already have the same information in the usual 2018 Pacific hurricane season, 2018 Atlantic hurricane season, 2018 Pacific typhoon season, ... etc. articles. Also, only Tropical cyclones in 2018 exists currently; I can only imagine how much time-consuming it will be to create and maintain Tropical cyclones in 2017, Tropical cyclones in 2016, etc. Something is not right (talk) 21:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Something is not right: As I mentioned earlier, this provides a global summary of TC activity and impacts worldwide that would not have been available otherwise. Additionally, the article is still being expanded and is far from finished. The plan for this article is go much more into detail about the conditions leading to tropical cyclone formation around the world than what we could have in seasonal articles. It is honestly inappropriate to kill a developing article that has no major issues. As for your argument about this being unnecessary simply because it doesn't exist for previous years wouldn't benefit wikipedia at all. New content is necessary to benefit wikipedia. Tornadoes and earthquakes have yearly articles, why can't TCs have one too? Figfires^{Send me a message!} 22:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @something is not right if we took this down, then just take down all the other tropical cyclone pages, like tropical cyclones in 2010. plus, people could benefit as it shows worldwide damage and effects. DerpieDerpie :D 01:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Touche ... I didn't go that far down the list so I didn't see that there was a 2010 article. Are there any others? Something is not right (talk) 03:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Something is not right: Other than that, no. Yearly articles do exist for other natural disasters like earthquakes and tornadoes which are quite plentiful. This simply provides a global overview of when and where activity occurred. Also, as stated above, the article is far from being finished and will go more into detail about factors leading to TC formation and the global effects of TCs than what the season articles can. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 03:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expanded to highlight worldwide activity that can't be covered in season articles. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the only argument for deletion I see is that this is a WP:CFORK of the per-region articles. A similar page was kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tropical cyclones in 2010. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and treat as a parent article for all of the season articles. We have tornado activity by year, why not tropical cyclones? We should eventually be able to say (in a hypothetical article for Tropical cyclones by year) There have been X tropical cyclones on record, which collectively killed Y people and caused $Z trillion in damage. Having tropical cyclones by year is a good way to cross-reference with the season and individual storm articles. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 03:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 09:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Red Notice (film)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

See film notability guidelines. This is an unreleased film and is not yet in principal production. See in particular future film notability guidelines. Films that are not in production are seldom notable, and there is no indication in this page why this film is an exception. Its listing is either promotional or a good-faith disregard of guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:33, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. scope_creep (talk) 01:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 09:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dayana Erappa[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Too soon, don't know how big the role in upcoming movie. NANExcella (talk) 11:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chennai Information Updater (talk) 11:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC) hi are you there — Chennai Information Updater (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chennai Information Updater (talk) 12:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC) Shall I add a hyperlink of her role on her page — Chennai Information Updater (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Chennai Information Updater (talk) 12:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC) have added a hyperlink to her role kindly check it — Chennai Information Updater (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Chennai Information Updater (talk) 12:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC) correctly placed on her filmography's role section — Chennai Information Updater (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Chennai Information Updater (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC) kindly check it once — Chennai Information Updater (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

keep Keep this one — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4072:6316:3703:CC49:81B:81AF:C5FC (talk) 13:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Keep looks gud — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:3A80:45C:DB1F:0:3B:838:601 (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOTABILITY; fails WP:ANYBIO. Rosalina2427 ^{(talk to me)} 21:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep details re all notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:70CC:A69E:C3A:3EC9:1FE7:3064 (talk) 09:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Comment Might not be the right place to say this, but there seem to be three IPs with only one edit each to this discussion, in favor of keeping. Does the discussion need to be relisted? Rosalina2427 ^{(talk to me)} 15:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep my suggestions... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chennai Lover (talk • contribs) 13:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC) — Chennai Lover (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:13, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable (fails WP:GNG), also WP:TOOSOON. Keep votes have no actual rationale, and are likely canvassed or single purpose users. Kirbanzo (talk) 01:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Fails notability guideline for actors by a mile.Too soon ∯WBG^converse 14:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep look like notable, backlinks re correctly matching...kindly check those results its fair & provided citation links re all true - clearly showing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by King of circle (talk • contribs) 19:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC) – King of circle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Easily fails WP:NACTOR. May be recreated in the future once significant roles emerge. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 20:24, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep notable.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.203.114.134 (talk) 10:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC) 106.203.114.134 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
delete does not meet encyclopedic notability requirements, despite the adoration outpouring by her SPA fans. As we all know, this is not a vote. The coverage is not significant enough in terms of breadth and depth to meet any inclusion criteria you care to name. There's some name dropping, but we know notability is not inherited. Perhaps one day, but not this day. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet Wikipedia:NACTOR. --Bsherr (talk) 06:17, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 17:22, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Elvis[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:ENT. Trivial biographical details in secondary sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to meet WP:GNG and his two minor roles in television series are insufficient to meet WP:NACTOR. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is too little of significant coverage to make an article, even if technically he might pass creative guidelines. Bearian (talk) 17:07, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 10:35, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aron Wright (songwriter)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a musician, whose claims to passing WP:NMUSIC are not reliably sourced -- although it's reference bombed to a whopping 106 footnotes, literally none of them are actually valid support for notability at all. There are WordPress and Tumblr blogs, there are YouTube videos, there are routine directory entries, there are sources which tangentially verify facts about people he's claimed to have worked with while completely failing to mention his name at all in the process, and there are his own primary source profiles on sites like Last.fm or his own record label -- but what there isn't is even one single solitary footnote that represents reliable source media coverage about him. As always, there is nothing that any musician can claim that hands him an automatic inclusion freebie in the absence of the correct kind of sources to properly support the notability claim -- his includability is measured not by what the article says, but by how well it references what it says, and none of the sources here are cutting it at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability isn't proven by any of the references. It should also be noted that most references are just to ASCAP entries, they don't back up that the songs were featured in said television program. RoseCherry64 (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 10:36, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steven M. Neil[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Second level executive of major company. Almost all references are to his inclusion in a lawsuit against the company. DGG ( talk ) 18:21, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notable for only one event, fails WP:GNG. Sdmarathe (talk) 05:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Year of the Six Emperors#Pupienus, Balbinus and Gordian III. There's consensus that we should not have three articles about two emperors. But the "delete" opinions don't make clear why we should not create a redirect for a likely search term. Sandstein 20:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pupienus and Balbinus[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Both Pupienus and Balbinus have their own articles. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hmm. I created this article 15 years ago. Three years later, someone else created separate articles on each emperor. I guess the question is whether we should have one article on them, or two articles. -- llywrch (talk) 05:24, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Llywrch: IMO two is better. Multi-people articles is usually done when they have no claim for fame that is unique to them, but share one. One example is Martyrs, who would otherwise not be notable. Because they are not individually notable they are grouped, whereas here both are individually noticeable. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Year of the Six Emperors. It's definitely better to have stand-alone articles; the Year of the Six Emperors is the best redirect target (and doesn't have a WP:XY problem). power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Similar to Presidency of Donald Trump in relation to Mike Pence and Donald Trump - just that Pupienus and Balbinus were titular equals and didn't write anonymous columns in the New York Times. The 3 month administration as co-emperors is independently notable from either individual.Icewhiz (talk) 10:12, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A search for "Pupienus and Balbinus" and "Balbinus and Pupienus" etc in GBooks etc indicates that a sufficient quantity of suitable sources treat them as a single topic for that topic to be notable independently of either of them. Some sources do speak of them as having an "administration" together, using that word exactly. An argument can also be made based on the inscriptions on the coinage they issued. They were elected together as joint Augustii (each of them was an Augustus), whereas Gordian III was only Ceasar until after their deaths. I don't think the fact the disliked each other or didn't co-operate or split the military and civil sides of the government between them is enough to get rid of this article. The Empire wasn't divided into East and West until Diocletion, so that is not an issue. James500 (talk) 01:03, 14 September 2018 (UTC) ~~Keep~~ per Icewhiz. The 'administration' of the two co-emperors is independently notable. James500 (talk) 13:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@James500: I seriously question that metric as a measure of the worthiness of a combined topic. Points where their history were the same, thus creating a plausible "Pupienus and Balbinus" wording: Both were on senator council which appointed emperor. Both were appointed emperor. Both were rioted against to appoint Gordian III. Both were assassinated by Praetorian Guard. Just because the same events happened to both does not mean the two are being treated as a seperate topic of the two, just that both were involved in the same event. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz and James500: They reigned for only a short time before Gordian III was appointed with them; should Pupienus and Balbinus and Gordian III get an article? Also the way Roman and Byzantine succession goes, there are probably 80 some articles to be made about the overlap of reigns. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:35, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I have struck my !vote while I re-evaluate this. James500 (talk) 16:41, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do think that this should be redirected to the Year of the Six Emperors if it is not notable. No comment on notability at this time. James500 (talk) 13:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant. Srnec (talk) 04:41, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete !Voting here primarily to counteract the anti-historical !vote from Icewhiz (and possibly James500 if he unstrikes his above !vote after re-evaluating). Citing Presidency of Donald Trump is one of the worst cases of WP:OSE I've ever seen, as a lot less can be written about Roman emperors than about contemporary American presidents simply by virtue of a lot less being known about them, and a reasonable case could be made for most Roman emperors that they are only notable as Roman emperors (definitely not the case for Trump, who had a standalone article for years before he even entered politics), so having a separate article on the emperorship of this or that emperor would make the biographical article named for them redundant. No one would have ever heard about most Roman emperors more than a century or so after their deaths had they not become emperor for however short a time. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:43, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Trump (and every single other US presidential term we have an entry for) was but an example. Many Roman figures are known despite not being emporers - in great detail. However, you actually make my point above - the adminstration of a large empire is more notable than the biography of the fellow(s) who happen to hold the title. In this case we have a 3 month periid of Roman adminstration that is more notable than the named individuals.Icewhiz (talk) 09:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many Roman figures are known despite not being emporers Umm ... citation needed? You are saying we know as many Roman businessmen (or military generals, or senators, or ...) as modern American ones, adjusted for change in population size? That's ridiculous, and I'm sure you know it is. For the vast majority of Roman emperors, we have no reason to believe their names (let alone anything else about them) would have come down to us had they not become emperors. See Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? for a very readable account of how we hardly know about anyone who lived in the ancient Mediterranean world. The fact that our individual articles on Pupienus and Balbinus include as little as they do about their lives outside of their emperorships is further evidence of this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:15, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The reason we know less about people from the ancient history than contemporary people is because sources from that period have been lost because they were written on perishable materials and were too difficult to reproduce without printing. Per WP:NTEMP we cannot use the loss of sources as an argument against notability. If they once existed, we have to take them into account. Both of these individuals satisfied WP:POLITICIAN before becoming emperor because of holding national public offices such as consul. Many emperors would have satisfied POLITICIAN or SOLDIER before they became emperor. A Roman emperor is far more notable than an American president for various reasons, not least of which is that an emperor had much greater legal powers. The argument that contemporary sources have been lost also fails because the lost sources have been cited, quoted, paraphrased and otherwise used by later extant sources that did have access to the lost works. The names of a significant number of non-emperors have come down to us from all sources. Even William Smith's biographical dictionary, for example, confirms this. Had these two not been emperors, I can see no reason to assume their names would not have come down to us anyway for other reasons, such as being consuls. The reason I struck my !vote is not because I doubt that an 'administration' would be notable, but because I am not certain that there was an 'administration' that you could label as such. James500 (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reason we know less about people from the ancient history than contemporary people is because sources from that period have been lost because they were written on perishable materials and were too difficult to reproduce without printing That's ... a very questionable interpretation of the problem, especially as it relates to WP:OSE and the "Presidency of Foo" articles. The reason we know less about people from the past is more likely that fewer sources were produced in the first place. There were no 24-hour news networks or YouTube or blogs, and the majority of the population (which was much smaller in the first place) could not even read or write. Even if every contemporary or near-contemporary source about P and B had magically survived, they would still be dwarfed in volume by the number of sources covering Trump. (And even among the probably relatively small number of works that don't survive, a lot of them were probably entertainments not meant to be taken seriously; I doubt any of our voluminous articles on Trump include an "in popular culture" discussion that mentions that on one episode of Friends Monica and Chandler both lied about their whereabouts by coming up with a story about how they saw Donald Trump waiting for an elevator. And if they do, I think they probably shouldn't.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:58, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Year of the Six Emperors#Pupienus, Balbinus and Gordian III, more or less per User:Power~enwiki. The argument about having an article about their joint administration in addition to the two separate biographical articles (both of which definitely satisfy notability requirements) is not entirely without merit but, given the relative scarcity of surviving sources for this historical period, there does not seem to be anything that this article could mention that would not equally fit (without being of undue weight) at the suggested target. No objection to merge instead, if anyone notices anything in this article that is not mentioned in the suggested target. PWilkinson (talk) 14:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Plain redirect to Year of the Six Emperors#Pupienus, Balbinus and Gordian III. Comparisons from modern history/politics do not help us in dealing with issues such as this. We have an article on each emperor, so that this is little better than a dabpage. Anyone wanting to know about Balbinus will search for him. Anyone wanting to know about their reign will find a better account in the target. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Dont see why we should keep this since they have already have their own articles --Jay (talk) 14:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 09:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Goldman[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable author, fails WP:GNG can't find any reliable secondary sources, let alone in depth ones. Theroadislong (talk) 17:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article offers no evidence of notability. I have failed to find any. Maproom (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG by a wide margin. Could have been speedily deleted. Edwardx (talk) 19:47, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is a professor called Howard B. Goldman who is notable [2] [3] [4]. But this article is not about him, as far as I can see. (Hint: I would like someone to create Howard B. Goldman). James500 (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete PROMO for non notable "consultant."E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:30, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My esteemed colleagues already have put it well. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:GNG failure and WP:NOTINHERITED concerns. Per above, seems like a WP:SNOW is falling.--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No convincing argument made for keeping, while the delete arguments are policy-based. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:57, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Offir[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All of the sources are self published, interviews, amazon book links. Not sure whether just the authority control items make him notable or not. The creator and the significant contributor themselves added the COI tag. Editor General of Wiki (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Offir doesn't appear to be notable as an author, an artist, a time management specialist, or for any other reason. The article appears to be an autobiography created and curated by an editor whose edits are all related to Offir. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:G11. Then Amit can go and create a new time management course: "How to get your Wikipedia autobiography deleted in record time". (Hot tip: by not creating it in the first place). Just imagine, millions of people could benefit from this by not wasting their time trying to get their promotion on Wikipedia, and Wikipedia editors could save thousands of hours of time-consuming deletion discussions. --Vexations (talk) 21:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete This is so nice to see what are you writing about Mr. Amit offir. instead of helping fix the errors I have made (I am not a pro in wiki) you are insolting someone that is doing a great effort to make this world better. He is not only an author but a publisher of other author's books. my original language is Hebrew so my eng is not perfect. this is why I have made some mistakes while uploading the contcnt. please be fair and help keep this page. this author is a very important one in Israel and he should have a page on wiki because of his contribute to human kind. i dont know how to edit the page correctly so I am asking for your help guys. please help me fix it! thank you. This is a man's life and hard work he have done over the years. I am sorry that the references are linking to newspaper and tv. stations in Hebrew, vietnamese and other languages but please verify it and you will see that it is all real references. thank you
Mr. Amit Offir is not only self published - He is published with at least 10 different publishing houses before he opened a formal publishing house and literary agency. He is published with around 4-5 publishing houses in Israel, 3 publishing houses in Vietnam, 1 In America (Zipit), 1 in Poland, 1 in china, 1 in Russia. and I can show you proof to all of course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihi g (talk • contribs) 16:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lihi g The error you have made is that you wrote an egregiously promotional article. It is so bad that it cannot be fixed by regular editing and should be completely rewritten, if at all. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. Based on the sources provided in the article that I have reviewed, Offir is not notable by our standards. Hence the article should be deleted. If you can provide evidence of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, then please do so, and rewrite the article from a neutral point of view. Nobody is making fun of you because English is not your first language, certainly not me. English is not my first language either. I do reserve the right to make fun of Mr. Offir: Surely, one can see the irony in being both a "time management expert" and making 500,000 drawings on pebbles. Vexations (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I was working very hard to provide all evidence by linking to all major and reliable NEWS, TV., Radio and Articles pooving these facts and if you translate the articles you could find that it is all written there and also over the Tv from Vietnam, Malta and Israel. I dont know how to proof it otherwise but a little check from your side will proove all of it. such this link to Wena Polish publishing house - http://wenastudio.nazwa.pl/wena/autorzyautorki/amit-offir-eyal-nir/ that shows that Mr/ Amit Offir is a published author as well as in all 10 or more other publishing houses that was publishing his books around the world. He also in voluntiring around the world (also proven) and he donating for TREE PLANTING for every book that is getting published in his PUBLISHING HOUSE. I think He has alot of Notability and a little effort can help his leggacy be inspiring to other people. please help me or tell me what to do step by step in order to fix that. The page was ok untill I wanted to make more links to Mr. Offir update News from the last several years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihi g (talk • contribs) 18:10, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

this is also another link to another publishing house that have published 4 books by Amit Offir years ago - in 2000 which was just been published in Vietnam this year - https://www.gvanim-books.com/product-page/%D7%97%D7%99%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%A9-%D7%9E%D7%97%D7%A4%D7%A9-%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%A2%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%AA-%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%A8

also - ZIPIT is a global company that have published many books by Amit Offir in various languages - https://just-zipit.com/search?collection=all&type=product&x=10&y=11&q=amit+offir — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihi g (talk • contribs) 18:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lihi g, please don't misunderstand. We are not here to decide whether Mr. Offir is doing good work or whether he is important. We are trying to decide whether he meets the minimum requirements to qualify for an encyclopedia article on English Wikipedia, something we call Notability. There are a number of nuances, but the general idea is that in order to qualify for an encyclopedia article, a subject has to receive significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources.

This morning I read the obituary of Ruby Washington, the first African-American female staff photographer for The New York Times. I wanted to write an article about her, because she sounds like an important person, but I can't find significant coverage of her life—I can find her photos in thousands of New York Times articles and dozens of books, and in the collection of the Smithsonian Institution, but I can't find sufficient sources to establish her "notability".

That may be the case with Mr. Offir. We need coverage of him (not his books) by independent reliable sources (not his publishers' websites). Has any news source done a profile of him, including his childhood and education? Those are the sorts of things that make a person notable. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:50, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(And sources don't have to be in English. We have editors who read other languages and tools such as Google Translate that help us. The key thing is the source, not the language. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC))[reply]

thank you for your kind reply. please let me understand what kind of things you need as evidence. Mr. Amit Offir have published many books and his drawing technique as well as hit time managemnt technique are helping so many people around the world in the most deserted places so exept from interviews to tv. about it, radio and newpapers and also pictures of him teaching around the world, saving animals and contribute to our planet what more do you need? please let me know and I will be happy to do the research and upload it - with a little bit of help from your side to make the page in the right format - i think this is the purpose of wiki, isnt it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihi g (talk • contribs) 21:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Comment @Lihi g: We are not discussing if he is good or have done something for the humanity. Wikipedia contains pages for highly notorious (notable for negative deeds) people also. We have pages for Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy etc. So issues here are WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NOTADVERTISING.

To pass notability criteria we need multiple published sources which are:

Significant (Not just trivial mention or inclusion in a list of similar subject.)
Secondary (Not interviews and articles where the subject talks about himself)
Reliable (Not blog, forum, personal website, commercial book store, news sites with poor editorial integrity)
Independent (Not self published and self promoting videos, self written books or articles, paid news, press releases, personal website)

So, you might ask what kind of sources are accepted then?? You have to read WP:RS to clearly understand. Moreover, Wikipedia prohibits promotion through it's platform. Wikipedia is not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site, nor a soapbox or means of promotion. - Editor General of Wiki (talk) 05:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Comment thank you for your kind reply. I deleted all of the links to interviews and things that Mr. Offir says to the news. now there are only articles about him and author's sites that present him. I have also put all together all the publishing houses that have published Mr. Offir's books or at least what I have been able to discover. please let me know if there is anything more that I can change to make the page better. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihi g (talk • contribs) 07:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The page has been on the encyclopedia for more than 5 years with over 200 edits. The references cited initially were strong to prove that Amit Offir is notable. I cannot read Vietnamese, Chinese, and other languages but I see news links, interviews, and videos when I search for his name online and believe that there would be enough published sources to establish notability for the subject. I suggest to either go back to the original content of the page that allowed it to stay for 5 years or translate the news links available online and refresh the content. RajkGuj (talk) 08:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- @RajkGuj: Can you put here the link of the version of the article that you think contains strong references? And also put the links of the sources which would help us to keep his article in Wikipedia. Thanks. - Editor General of Wiki (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThere are many links to show that Mr. Offir activity around the world is important. His Drawing method 'Drawing Easily' won the Family Choice Award - http://www.familychoiceawards.com/gift-guide/zipit-drawing-easily/ of 2016,(that one wasn't one of the links in the page till now. also there is a link to national TV channel in Vietnam with Israeli ambassador about Israeli literature in Vietnam with the help of Mr. Offir - the owner of an Israeli Publishing house - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RypFoAZwMcY&list=PLE2C03470E2AC0D81. At least 10 different publishing houses have published his books, many Tv stations around the world interviewed him. also, Globes News, The biggest news in Israel - https://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1001123887 is a good source. there is also this News from Tv channel from Israel - in the bookfair in Germany who decided to cover the event and interview him as a publishing house from Israel and bestselling author - https://www.calcalist.co.il/consumer/articles/0,7340,L-3722998,00.html

and also this artice - https://www.calcalist.co.il/local/articles/0,7340,L-3616871,00.html I will try to put it back on the page. If someone here can please help me edit the page a little bit so it would fit wiki I will appreciate it a lot. thank you very much for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihi g (talk • contribs)

Comment I have done some more research on Mr. Amit Offir and found that he have more books, some been illustrated by him and some are also written and illustrated by him. I did a research and found more and more ISBN numbers of all publishing houses around the world that have published his work and books. I have edited the page again and also put here a link I think will show and proove that Mr. Offir has been published by many publishing houses around the world, and many other books have been published by his Publishing house itself: https://www.worldcat.org/search?q=%D7%A2%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%AA+%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%A8&qt=results_page. I will also add the link to the Israeli National Library where you can see all of Amit Offir's books http://merhav.nli.org.il/primo-explore/search?query=any,contains,%D7%A2%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%AA%20%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%A8&vid=NLI&search_scope=Local&sortby=rank&tab=default_tab&lang=iw_IL&mode=simple&fromRedirectFilter=true. I hope that it means that you will consider to save this page due to the new sources. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihi g (talk • contribs) 12:32, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the references are OCLC number of his books. The article, at its current state failsWP:GNG. Dial911 (talk) 23:23, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentDidnt you see all the ISBN for all of his books, also appear in the page? If you could help with formating the page into the right form that will be much better than just critisizing the page. Please try to help out with appearance of the page so it will not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihi g (talk • contribs) 09:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have counted 10 ISBN to the page of different publishing houses published Mr. Offir's books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihi g (talk • contribs) 10:31, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you also can check mr. Offir's ISBN here - https://www.worldcat.org/search?q=amit+offir&qt=owc_search and here - https://www.google.co.il/search?biw=1152&bih=722&ei=KWynW7DoEoGKrwS7q4KIBA&q=Amit+Offir+ISBN+list&oq=Amit+Offir+ISBN+list&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i21k1.2485.3234.0.3377.4.4.0.0.0.0.187.502.0j3.3.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..1.3.502...33i160k1.0.YbKMEYYFdEU

I don't know why you think an ISBN is relevant. An ISBN is good to have in a citation, because it makes it easier to find a book. It does not establish that the author or the publisher of such a book is notable in our special sense of the word. I can request a block of ISBN numbers from my local ISBN agency and have them issued to me pretty much immediately. Vexations (talk) 11:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentAre you being cynical sir? Did you take 1 minute to look at the author's resume or you're just writing cynical comments for no reason? This author have so many books with different publishing houses and this comment is just a making this all conversation a waste of my deep research about the author. You can argue that ISBN numbers are just something that you can buy in the store because every one of the ISBN that are mentioned here has link to the acctual books the author wrote and illustrated over the years. If it is written wrong please let me know and I will try to fix it or if you can contribute and help fixing it please do, that will help a lot. Wiki is supposed to be nutral help people like me that are no experts in it to want to help contributing more rellevant pages to its site. I want to add this link - it's to Mr. Offir's Literary Agency official Website (Squirrel Rights Agency) - http://vi.squi-agency.com/ I just found this info now after more research I have done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihi g (talk • contribs) 13:42, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite serious. Publishing lots of books does not make a person notable. Significant coverage in independent, reliable sources does. I see no indication that you have understood what notability as we use it means. Please tell me that you have read and understood WP:N, then provide sources per that guideline. Vexations (talk) 14:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentHi, first of all thank you for your answer. I did read it and after reading I have added more strong sources. but again, Im not a pro with wiki so I am asking for your help because I might have made something wrong while editing the page. I know that having a literary agent must mean a lot, multi-language translations of his books, donations, TV, Radio and articles and also the owner of a respected publishing house so if it is just a matter of formatting the page and fixing it, can someone here help me with fixing it please? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihi g (talk • contribs) 2018-09-23 16:12:21 (UTC)

The problem is not formatting. What we're trying to decide here is whether Amit Offir meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. The only source so far that comes close to a usable source is https://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1001123887 which makes such outlandish claims that they would need to verified by other (independent) sources to be credible. The way to fix the article is to find sources that discuss Offir in-depth. The only sources I have found are https://news.zing.vn/chuyen-gia-do-thai-bat-mi-bi-quyet-dan-dau-trong-moi-cuoc-dua-post757684.html, https://news.zing.vn/gap-go-nguoi-viet-500-cuon-sach-trong-1-nam-post757639.html and http://baodansinh.vn/nguoi-be-khoa-thoi-gian-chia-se-bi-quyet-lam-viec-hieu-qua-d60396.html which all have the same problem: extraordinary claims that are not supported by evidence. Vexations (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI can resend again Mr. Offir's 1 hour talk on the Radio station, many photos of him showing his way of life, some videos that shows how fast can he draw in his seminars or even a link to all of his books in various languages that have been published over his 20 years of his career. Can you please explain more on how can I help with finding these evidence that will ease your mind and I will do my best. I also didn't understand if you have looked at the link to Mr. Offir's Literary Agency. isn't it a good source and all of the ISBN numbers of his books taken from the National Library of Israel and also from the World Catalog of books that are both credibble sources. Thank you Sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihi g (talk • contribs) 20:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to help you. You say you have read and understood WP:N, but you still think that photos of him showing his way of life, ideos that shows how fast can he draw, a link to all of his books are suitable sources. They are not. You need to show us what other people have written about him. Vexations (talk) 20:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please check these sources - What ohther people think about Mr. Offir. 1. http://siayla.blogspot.com/2014/02/review-how-to-draw-books-by-amit-offir.html 2. http://booksthattugtheheart.blogspot.com/2013/03/reviews-how-to-draw-by-amit-offir.html 3. https://lynnadavidson.com/2014/08/07/book-review-how-to-draw-forest-fairies-step-by-step-practical-guide-for-beginners-by-amit-offir/ 4. Family Choice Award - http://www.familychoiceawards.com/gift-guide/zipit-drawing-easily/ 5. https://www.ereverev.co.il/article.asp?id=30368 6. http://michalmotivation.blogspot.com/p/blog-page_21.html 7. https://ebookreviewgal.com/how-to-draw-series-by-amit-offir/ 8. https://www.sanfoundry.com/best-reference-books-fashion-model-drawing/ - please let me know if you accept to undelete the page

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 10:36, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chandra Bhople[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a single source is reliable. All of them are self published websites or press releases. Editor General of Wiki (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 16:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability and reads like a CV. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Internet Research Agency. Tone 10:37, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhail Bystrov[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent notability. The stub confuses Bystrov and Prigozhin by calling Bystrov a "Russian oligarch". The one sentence about Bytrov as a principal of the Internet Research Agency can be covered in that article. — JFG ^talk 16:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is enough coverage turning it into a redirect to Internet Research Agency. Orientls (talk) 08:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Unanimously considered notable, nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yadesa Bojia[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is borderline, and I can't really tell whether the artist meets WP:NARTIST. Main claim to notability is his design for the African Union flag; but I find it hard to determine whether that plus a number of exhibitions (some group, some solo) suffices. Input requested. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This topic of the article clearly meets General notability guidelines as one would except when they did something as interesting and varied as create the design for the African Union Flag and a painting that hang in the Washington State Supreme Court judges’ chamber. On top of that the creation of flag alone makes Bojia noteworthy per Creative professionals notability criteria. But wait there's more, Boijia is also an activist who appears in the international and US media discussing international issue related to Africa. That enough for a solid keep from me. Sydney Poore/FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 23:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Sydney's eloquent statement. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:51, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as above. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 00:06, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What's the issue here? Lots of sources, designed the flag for the union representing a continent... That sounds pretty notable to me.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I started the article from scratch in Sept. 18 because I determined the subject meets GNG and in particular criteria for creative professionals, I've sought to include the relevant references, some of which User:FloNight referenced above. There are more interviews and coverage in Ethiopian and Seattle media yet included .. room to grow it up. I am glad for the opportunity to collaborate with other editors to sharpen my editing skills (the silver lining of visibility thanks to AfD)! Tho I think, @Elmidae:, as the AfD nominator, you accidentally forgot to notify me, so I'm also pinging @Theredproject:, @PRehse:, @Rosguill:, @GünniX: to notify these other users who have contributed to the article since I restarted it with new content. TX. Shameran81 (talk) 22:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Danny Dyer. Tone 17:21, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dani Dyer[edit]

Lorstaking (talk) 18:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. She has not had significant coverage that I can find in independent reliable sources. The coverage I did find was mainly about her father, Danny Dyer and even a Google search taking him out didn't fare any better.

She also fails WP:ENT as an actress. All 7 films mentioned under the Filmography section appear to have been cameo or minor roles. The latter 2 mentioned are in fact reality television programmes. Of those two, she left Survival of the Fittest (TV series) after 2 days so the only one she appeared in for any length of time was Love Island (series 4).

I suggest either redirecting to the personal life section of Danny Dyer or to Love Island (series 4). 5 albert square (talk) 15:52, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

merge Merge to father's page.Devlindetails (talk) 19:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can find references,[5][6][7][8] and that's why deletion is not the right option. Better to merge/redirect to Danny Dyer for now. Lorstaking (talk) 18:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Love Island (series 4), she won the latest series hence the refs above. Szzuk (talk) 13:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 09:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Herbstluftwm[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Questionable notability. Cited "sources" are UGC, wikis, or blogs that fail WP:RS. ViperSnake151 Talk 15:37, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not have notability. Editor-1 (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (conditional) Quick search - here's a source [9], if others are found consider this a keep. Widefox; talk 19:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tiling window manager#List of tiling window managers for X Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 09:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bspwm[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. No reliable secondary sources, and one is a wiki (automatically unreliable). ViperSnake151 Talk 15:33, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not have notability. Editor-1 (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Quick search didn't find RS Widefox; talk 19:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (unless reason to keep) as one/two liner to Tiling window manager#List of tiling window managers for X

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 09:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Lamprecht[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be a vanity page. I removed numerous generic references and claims, such as the Columbia grad school main site being used to back the idea that he attended there. He might have, but that is not a source. Only passing mentions are left. Fails GNG. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Passing mention in NYT, no other good sources I can see. Fails WP:NBIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:33, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. essentially advertising. DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 09:49, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of apps that come with Apple devices[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

per WP:NOTDIR. Apps can be found on Apple's Website with the same information found here. Additionally, most of these apps are mentioned in various pages about each iOS version, i.e. iOS 12. Simple mirroring of already existent information. BRES2773 (talk) 12:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. 344917661X (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTDIR. Ajf773 (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails almost every logical test for inclusion in Wikipedia. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Notability established, however, there are no references. Will tag as unref. Tone 09:50, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan Adi Korklu Bey I[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Entirely unsourced. I couldn't find anything about him. But if other users can prove that he's notable, then I'll gladly withdraw the nomination. Keivan.f^Talk 06:01, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ruler of a semi-independent state, so notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:56, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Necrothesp ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 08:35, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:23, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apoorva (actress)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:NACTOR. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Does not satisfy notability guides. Eagleash (talk) 11:56, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR Clause 3. Apart from being a mentioned in sources as "popular Telugu Actress",[10] and "Established Character artist"[11]. With 25 Telugu movies[12] She was also covered significantly for her protests related to the Me Too movement against sexual exploitation in the Telugu industry. The protests were successful in getting the implementation of protective measures. [13], so I claim notability per WP:SIGCOV --DBigXrayᗙ 12:41, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This activism passes the WP:NACTOR Clause 3 which says Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.--DBigXrayᗙ 22:16, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry DBigXray, but as per the sources you provided this looks like a low-profile individual to me who was in the news only for the single event and there is no evidence to support her role in the films listed in the article. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GSS beat me to it... I would agree that the links posted above are not really much more than passing mentions in articles basically about other people. Resigning from an organisation and being photographed alongside other actresses hardly makes her an activist and the section added to the article headed activism might be considered WP:UNDUE. Eagleash 14:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi popular WP:Mainstream Media sites like Indian Express (link above) calls her as Popular Telugu actress and "Established Character artist"[14]. The sources for a Telugu actress notability will mostly be expected to be found in Telugu language, but When Mainstream English sources, credit her as a notable Telugu actor then it should not be shot down as trivial but rather acknowledged.
Secondly her participation in the Sexual exploitation movement was notable (although it was started by a less renowned actor SriReddy, who was promptly banned by MAA film body to stifle dissent, when Apoorva, an "established character artist" openly came in her support and resigned, more artists joined in and it became a major protest movement with widespread coverage in all the languages of the national media. After Apoorva joined in The wire quotes Within a week, this insurrection sparked off a huge public discussion about the sexual exploitation in the Telugu film industry – probably the first time in the history of Indian film industry. Support by women’s groups and some Telugu news channels also proved crucial in turning Reddy’s desperate and isolated protest into a media event, one that could no longer be ignored.
The protests led to involvement of National Human Rights Commission of India and led to set up of framework with lasting impact on Telugu industry. This activism passes the WP:NACTOR Clause 3 which says Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
The movie just by itself may not be enough but all these reasons in combination makes her notable and has made me to support a Keep vote. User:GSS Eagleash hope you will agree. regards--DBigXrayᗙ 15:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for improving my artical DBigXray Iamheentity (talk)

Delete - This doesn't convince me about notability. Notability stands on its own merits and we shouldn't be asked to add little bits of sub-notability to try and add up to one whole notability. It just doesn't work like that. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Velella, The subject is notable enough for the significant coverage and the subsequent victory of her activism. That she is a popular actress further strengthens her notability. --DBigXrayᗙ 17:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I disagree. Had I agreed with that argument I would not have written as I did. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Let's go for a dissection of sources:--

This is mere trivial coverage about the subject.All that she did was to be one of the members of MAA to protest against sexual harassment in the industry and the news article devotes a single line to her, (which is a repetition of the head-line).The sole reason that she was mentioned in the headline was for her usage of a hooky phrase.

Contributes nearly-nothing to notability.

IMDB is not a reliable source.It neither not distinguish between mainstream films and B-grade films nor does it provide any clue as to the significance of the role in the film.

No notability from here.

This devotes some lines to the subject.

As I said at a RSN thread, the source does not distinguish between factual reporting, commentary and opinion-pieces.This is an op-ed, as clear as it can be and such adjectives and showering of epithets fail to contribute any to notability.

The sole source which is reliable and devotes a trivial line to the subject as one who is a popular character artiste.

One source do not make-th any notability.

Overall, it can be equivalently argued that this is a BLP1E scenario, when she seems to have got all the coverage (which is basically negligible) for her role as a co-participant in the MAA protest against sexual harassment.

Overall, she fails our notability guidelines by quite a margin.∯WBG^converse 05:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails as per GNG as of now. Could be kept if 2 or 3 solid sources talked about her in depth. Dial911 (talk) 23:27, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:NACTOR or at least, GNG. Rest I would agree with DBigXray ,Knightrises10 (talk) 07:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Knightrises10: passes WP:NACTOR? can you please provide some reliable soruce that support her role in the films listed in the article? Thank you. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:07, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 09:51, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lord of Shadows[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article has been unsourced for more than a year. Notability was challenged last year, since then no citations to reliable source have been added. As far as I can tell, the novel has not gathered any independent reviews in reliable sources. --LK (talk) 11:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've found some reviews, however my question is whether or not this will ever be able to be more than it is now. To be honest, part of me is leaning towards a merge for the series (which could use some bolstering of notability). ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:03, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG and criteria 1 of WP:NBOOK with multiple book reviews. James500 (talk) 22:29, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree that this meets both WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. This is part of a popular young adult series by a popular author. This page serves as a resource for readers of the series. The author is currently on a book tour--so her publisher certainly believes her books have a big audience. No need to delete. Auldhouse (talk) 17:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this book appears to be quite popular, with around 1400 library holdings, being a bestseller ("2017 Children's Bestsellers: Thriving Backlists, Popular Tie-Ins, and More", and appearing in the 2017 Goodreads Choice Awards ("How many winning books from the 2017 Goodreads Choice Awards have you read?", "2017 Goodreads Choice Awards: Best Young Adult Fantasy & Science Fiction"), in addition to the reviews in the article, it has been reviewed by Booklist - "The story strains its 700-plus pages, and at times, the widely diverse cast feels more like a checklist, as not all characters are fully developed. But there's enough blood, gore, and forbidden love to satisfy the most ardent of Clare fans, and with that cliff-hanger ending, how can they not come back for book three?", Common Sense Media - "As always, fans will eat up this extra-large helping of this Shadowhunter saga with parts lovelorn melodrama, demon and undead fighting, and political turmoil." so this is a Keep from me. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as noted above satisfies NBOOK easily. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:15, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 09:51, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Devesh Kumar Singh[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can find no significant coverage in independent reliable sources, which is what's required to meet WP:GNG and no indication of notability per WP:BIO. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:44, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant reliable coverage.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Knightrises10 (talk) 13:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of live-action puppet films[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Trivial "X in Y" crossover list, perhaps better suited for a category. There's no article on Live action puppet film, which would merit a spin-off list like this. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:41, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think this could be a suitable list topic to keep because it is a distinctive kind of film, but there would need to be list sources supporting this kind of topic per WP:NOTESAL. I am wary of any claims of a topic being "trivial" because what is trivial to one reader may be of interest to another. An editor nominated List of films featuring eclipses for deletion, perceiving it as too trivial, but it was resoundingly kept on the basis of sources. We should approach it the same way here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as seems a valid topic for a list as there have been quite a few notable films of this type and the list gives more information than a category such as the year of release and originating country, director could also be added, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am not sure what the scope of this article is supposed to be. The first sentence says, "Only films in which all the characters are represented by puppets should be listed here", and that's how the article was originally created. However, nearly half the list now consists of films where puppet characters interact with human, non-puppet characters (such as the Muppet and Sesame Street films and The Happytime Murders). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies LISTN. These films have received extensive coverage, such that a large number of them are independently notable and blue linked. It also needs to be borne in mind that this is merely one half of a list of puppet films, the other half being stop motion puppet films. James500 (talk) 05:59, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 10:37, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emma G. Cummings[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't believe this lady meets WP:NBIO. The article does not provide any evidence of notability nor could I find anything on line. The blogger at The Backside of America could not find out much about her either, so the "significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources" is missing. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wanted to contribute to the conversation regarding deleting this article. I know the page is currently short, but this is a hugely important woman who influenced horticulture and tree planting in the Boston area of the US, and even has a memorial plaque celebrating her. I want to continue adding to and building this page and I don't feel it should be deleted because it does meets with the notability criteria of Wikipedia. I know some of the information online is limited but I have friends in Boston are looking for more information on her. She was an author, she made great contributions to the Boston area and was well known and recognized in her time. The article is limited because I'm still fact checking lots of information before adding it to ensure I have good references. We should be actively increasing the number of notable women on Wikipedia to adjust the gender imbalance, and this woman was recommended by Wikipedia's Women In Red as being notable and missing an article, and so this is why i created it.

I hope that explains why this article should not be deleted. Please let me know if you want to discuss.

Geneticcuckoo (talk) 10:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:43, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Quite a few references have been added to the article. But while seeing (and helping a bit with) the article's development has been interesting, I can't say that any of those references appear to be particularly in-depth. There are obituaries, mentions in conference minutes, and entries in genealogy texts and library author lists, but most of the mentions are only in passing. But I'm not convinced either that this amount of coverage available online isn't significant for a turn-of-the-century figure. Maybe there exists more offline sources. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia's definition of "hugely important" is that a subject can meet the GNG. Adequate, reliable sources demonstrating a subject's notability is a prerequisite for an article, not an afterthought, and those sources should have been provided prior to any such article leaving draft space. Indeed, we should be increasing the number of notable women on Wikipedia, but if the sourcing here wouldn't support an article for a male horticulturist, I don't see how it would for a a woman, a Xhosa or a Martian either. Ravenswing 16:57, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added information and references to 2 reviews of her book, as well as a reference verifying that she was an Associate (elected, not just dues-paying) of the American Ornithologists' Union, which later became the American Ornithological Society. Bakazaka (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Her work is reviewed in several RS and The Journal of Education 1904 called her a "well known ornithologist." A reprint of her speech given in Massachusetts appears in Nebraska! She was the first woman to hold city office in Brookline. This is plenty to establish notability. I hope that Ravenswing will take a look at sources I added and sources that Bakazaka found. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As far as that JSTOR link goes, a three-paragraph book review where the subject is, in fact, called a "well-known member of the Ornithologists' Union" would meet no standard for notability on Wikipedia; not WP:PROF, not the GNG, nor any other criterion. In like fashion, Massachusetts has over 360 municipalities, and no doubt there was someone who was the first woman to hold public office in each and every one of them (in Brookline's case, actually, that'd be "town" office); that meets no notability criteria either, especially since NPOL would accord no presumptive notability to any municipal official in a town Brookline's size. I would be happy to strike my Delete vote if you come up with grounds that actually meet the specific conditions of any notability criteria, but come on. Ravenswing 00:33, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Subjects meets WP:NACADEMIC#3 as an elected member of the American Ornithological Society. Thsmi002 (talk) 01:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR#3, as subject has "created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work" that has been the subject of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Bakazaka (talk) 04:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Goose-Step[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article has been unsourced since creation in 2005. A google search returns only hits for fragments about it, as exist for any political cartoon. There's no indication that the article has any notability outside of the fact it exists. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is the sort of article I like to try to keep (the kind about something quite specific but perhaps historically significant), but after doing a pretty good search I'm not coming up with enough to justify WP:GNG. It's from Punch btw, and the image is almost certainly a copyvio (to be dealt with on Commons). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The image is in the Library of Congress which usefully says "rights not evaluated". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. Maintenance templates aren't a rationale for deletion per WP:NODEADLINE but this is a pretty clear failure of GNG and is essay-like. Some references in secondary sources as a "notable political cartoon" but nothing substantive. If anything can be salvaged, it should be merged to the artist's page. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 20:59, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think that, to begin with, this satisfies criteria 4 of WP:NBOOK. I am under the impression that this particular cartoon is and has been habitually used, more or less nationwide, for many years in GCSE and O Level modern history textbooks, teaching materials, school lessons and examinations. (Possibly A-level as well). [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]. It certainly has been set as a question in exams for, for example, the Midland Examining Group (MEG) [22]. You may have difficulty finding this sort of thing with a search engine because these sort of sources sometimes only describe the thing as "a British cartoon" about such and such. There is substantial coverage, such as New Statesman [23], but it isn't easy to search for. James500 (talk) 03:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I did find some of this, and the artist is very famous. Per James500, I think it passes WP:NBOOK. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:29, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to E. H. Shepard. James' links show the picture has been reproduced, but none of them are significant coverage. #1 is a reprint without attribution to the author or commentary. #2 is a reprint asking the reader to do their own analysis. #3 has no preview to judge. #4 is another reprint without attribution or commentary. #5 has no preview to judge. #6 provides a little context, no attribution, and asks the reader to do their own analysis. #7 is the same as one and four. #8 seems to be referring to the cartoon, but I can't find the actual image and there's no context or analysis. #9 is a description of the image, calling it Shepard's "strongest (and funniest) cartoons".

As it is, the bulk of this article is OR. Based on the sources provided here, it will remain that way. None of the incoming links are in-line references, so getting rid of this won't adversely affect other articles. Per #9, I think adding a minimum of information to the cartoonist's article is the best course of action. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:12, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm also wary of using NBOOK criteria is something that is...not a book. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 14:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per James500. GenuineArt (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to E. H. Shepard. Using the cartoon in textbooks to me is not sufficient for notability, unless the work specifically addresses the content of the cartoon and not poses the question to students to think about. But it is attached to a notable artist so there's no reason mention cannot be made there. Keep in mind, the entire "interpretion" section on the article violates OR without sources to back it up, so that would nix most of the article. --Masem (t) 15:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:38, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no references; this reads like an essay by a student based on their textbook. Being included in a bunch of different versions of textbooks on the same official curriculum is not sufficient for notability. I don't see any reason to include this in E. H. Shepard. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR - no references, and none of the ones shown seem to satisfy WP:GNG. I don't have any problem with a merge, but you'd need to add sources to the section that you add. SportingFlyer talk 06:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No references means this fails WP:V. Yes, the fact that the cartoon was reproduced does show that it exists, but the article is all unsourced WP:OR. -- RoySmith (talk) 07:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:V, WP:GNG. No reference at all for years as per WP:OR --Jay (talk) 14:19, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

D.R.I. discography[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Already covered in the page Dirty Rotten Imbeciles, and it has nine out of ten unreliable sources. ~SML • TP 13:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC) ~SML • TP 13:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:30, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First, all of the references are from an unreliable source and the content could easily be merged back (with reliable sources) to the main article. Leave no redirect. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:07, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dirty Rotten Imbeciles (which should still be at D.R.I. (band) by the way as they are almost always referred to as D.R.I.). This content is not covered adequately in the band article, hasn't been in the band article for years, and has developed in parallel. It should be in the band article (there is no need to split based on size), and if we merge it there we have to leave a redirect for attribution. --Michig (talk) 09:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The discography page says the band has released seven studio albums, two live albums, one compilation album and two EPs. That's good enough for a discography page entry. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 14:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It needs to be strengthened with better references, but the band has enough releases to qualify for a list-style discography article, particularly within the parameters of the Discographies project. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:51, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Whether or not we include a full discography in an artist's article or split it out to a separate article should be purely decided on considerations of article size, not how many releases an artist has had. There isn't a single good argument for outright deletion here. --Michig (talk) 11:03, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus was that Feng Timo is notable and that there are sufficient reliable sources to prove this. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 16:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feng Timo[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet WP:NMUSIC. Yoninah (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments You received awards but the article needs to be developed more Freetheangels (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment English coverage appears to be lacking. As for Chinese sources, I found quite a few hits about her, but they almost all apparently appear to be tabloid-like reports about an allegation that she had secretly married. I haven't dug deep enough to find other sources, so for now I can't !vote Keep or Delete. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The subject isn't a professional musician, but a professional network anchor, which has no corresponding notability guideline in Wikipedia, so WP:NMUSIC may not be fully apply to this article. Please reconsider. 223.11.111.160 (talk) 02:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She appears to be a social media personality. There are Chinese references in the article but after googling her in English all that returns are social media and nothing RS. The article is currently at DYK and as part of the discussion contributors have been asked to ensure she satisfied WP:N but nothing has been forthcoming. Szzuk (talk) 08:57, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to popular belief, foreign language sources are accepted on Wikipedia and can be used to establish notability. If English sources for a foreign subject are lacking, they can still be notable if foreign language sources cover them. With that said, the Chinese sources I could find for her don't seem to be promising either given that they looked like tabloid articles. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 21:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware we accept foreign language references, my opinion is that they will be of the same quality as the English language ones, I can't prove this, however given the preponderance of social media personalities on the internet I find myself at the limit of Good Faith. Szzuk (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage in Xinhua should be sufficient for WP:GNG they're a major media org.Simonm223 (talk) 18:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What is Xinhua? The article just looks paid for to me. Szzuk (talk) 19:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Xinhua is kind of a big deal, and ref 1 is an article published on xinhuanet.com - which is one of the publishing subsidiaries of Xinhua. I'd suggest that it definitely counts as a WP:RS. Sina.com is also a big portal - though it's more likely to have user-generated content so I'd proceed with caution on the ones sourced to there though news.sina.com is probably safe to consider an RS (ref 4). So on the basis of her entertainment career alone we've probably got sufficient for WP:GNG when you add in her TV appearances, and her involvement in that embezzling scandal I'd say her notability is pretty darn solid. And even if this page was originally produced by a paid editor, that's not grounds for deletion; there's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Simonm223 (talk) 19:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just learning about the embezzlement scandal from the links in the article and it's kind of crazy and amazing and hilarious, so I do have to admit I would like to keep that on the platform for the odd person who might be amused by it alone. Simonm223 (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I translated the refs you noted and I visited her Chinese Language wiki page which is in a similar vein (tagged ref improve). It is less clear cut than I thought, however I asked myself if this person was in the English media with that quality of reference would I vote keep or delete, and the answer is delete. Szzuk (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In my case at least, I did see those articles during my search, and they felt more like tabloid articles than what you'd normally read in such sites. Normally those sources would have been enough for me to !vote Keep, but their tone worries me considering this is a BLP. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She appears to anchor a "webcast" and release singles onto the internet, her pr company likely staged controversy around her marriage and her accountant stole money off her. Modest fare. It is possible to be notable via the internet as YouTube personality pages on here attest. If it does get kept it needs stubifying. Szzuk (talk) 06:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naw, her accountant didn't steal money from her. A real estate accountant stole a bunch of money from a developer and gifted it to her and some other TV hostesses. She's promised to return the stolen money, which she had no reason to know was, in fact, stolen. It's actually a really interesting story. Simonm223 (talk) 14:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think Make Progress Everyday was a TV program rather than a webseries. Regardless, the coverage of her is easily over the WP:GNG bar and I'd recommend against calling Xinhua a tabloid source because it's really not. Simonm223 (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to do anything with the article? Its just going to get deleted either now or at another afd in this state. Szzuk (talk) 15:38, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An article requiring improvement is not a valid reason for a delete !vote; suggest it should be nominated for AFI instead. Simonm223 (talk) 12:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - she is voted one of the ten most influential internet celebrities (Big V) in China (think PewDiePie). Enter her Chinese name on Google News and you get a whopping 436,000 results, many from major mainstream news sites such as Sohu, Sina, NetEase and Xinhua, the official news site of the Chinese government. Notable beyond doubt. -Zanhe (talk) 08:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No notability probleam for a global-wide Wikipedia, the contributions from the editors should be encouraged.行到水穷处 (talk) 13:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hizayib az Zanah[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced, no proof it exists, certainly no contemporary record. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:34, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:34, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Useless uncited one-sentence article of dubious accuracy. Softlavender (talk) 10:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 09:10, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Maragheh Khanate. Tone 09:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mükeddem dynasty[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced but I have no prejudice against recreation if notability can be established. Keivan.f^Talk 06:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This [24] source might be able to support a little of the article, although it at best suggests the article is too simplistic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Also spelled Moqaddam in English and in Azerbaijani - Müqəddəm. The ruwiki entry is quite developed and well sourced. A source in English - [25].Icewhiz (talk) 12:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Icewhiz. A search for "Moqaddam" produces coverage in GBooks etc that satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 12:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The article's creator added the exact same content to Maragheh Khanate at roughly the same time, so this is a clear-cut WP:DEL5 case at best. Having it duplicated on two pages does not help readability or navigability, and given how terribly written and unsourced it is, having it in two places not only serves no constructive purpose but is a net negative. I'm neutral on whether the subject is notable enough for a separate article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:54, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To consider Hijiri's redirect suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 19:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Hijiri88's recommendation, with no prejudice against recreation if enough additional material is found to warrant a separate article. PohranicniStraze (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Michig (talk) 06:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He never married[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original research with lack of notability? The 3/4 references used only mention the claim in passing, while the remaining one (the 3rd one) states that it was used as such IN SOME CASES. Something the article doesn't mention

Most importantly, I am not a native speaker, but from what I know the first thing that comes to mind when u hear the phrase "He never married" is that the person in question has - you guessed it - never married. And as such, I am pretty sure wikipedia doesn't allow for creation of articles about common phrases Openlydialectic (talk) 06:30, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The use of the phrase as a code is confirmed by The Obituary as Collective Memory and this refutes the claim that this is OR. The more general topic is highly notable as entire books are written about it such as Bachelors: The Psychology of Men who Haven't Married or So Why Have You Never Been Married?. There is therefore plenty of scope for expansion and this is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion, per our editing policy". "Well preserved" is another code phrase that the nominator may not be familiar with... Andrew D. (talk) 07:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/Merge A phrase/term is usually not notable enough to stand on its own, but as it seems to have a suitable sources about the subject directly... I would lean on keep as there is room for expansion into an article about obituary codewords. If that already exists, I recommend merging this with that article (I couldn't find anything with a cursory search). Jcmcc (Talk) 08:56, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 09:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of sources that deal directly with this particular phrase and discuss its meaning. There is no OR. I believe that the nominator's confusion may stem from a lack of familiarity with British culture. It is a peculiarly British phrase as it dates from a time when homosexuality was illegal in Britain. The possible double meaning of indicating homosexuality or simply never having been married is dealt with directly by the article and the sources and was at the time of nomination, contrary to what the nominator says, in this section "Nigel Rees dated its use to the second half of the twentieth century and notes that it can also be used without any implication of homosexuality". Philafrenzy (talk) 09:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks to the hard work of Philafrenzy in digging up further reliable sources, this article easily passes WP:GNG, and makes the article more than substantial enough to not consider renaming or merging. Edwardx (talk) 11:10, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it has been improved. --Theredproject (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag as needing improvement and check for OR/SYNTH/whatever. Philafrenzy's work does not appear to be bad, at least not as bad as what he failed to remove from what was there before his edits, but the article still has problems that I think might be better address with deleting or merging than by other means. It's not policy-based but personally I really don't like articles with titles that looks like simple English phrases, and given that the article now includes coverage of the separate phrase "confirmed bachelor" I think LGBT euphemisms in obituaries would be a better, and more inclusive, title. Is "She never married" not used? I can imagine "confirmed bachelorette" not being a thing, but did old-fashioned newspaper obituaries avoid "he was gay" but use "she was a lesbian" freely? If we have articles on other equivalent phrases, I think that merging them into a single article would be better and avoid messy titles like this one, and if don't then this article should probably be expanded to cover them, and be renamed and refocused accordingly. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:57, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RA International[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines at WP:ORGCRIT. The article cites ^[1], but this appears to be routine coverage and I am further uncertain if it's a reliable source. The only other in-depth coverage in a secondary source that I was able to find was ^[2], but this is a textbook case of a Forbes profile disqualified by WP:ORGCRIT.

References

That having been said, given the company's HQ being located in Dubai and its operations being focused in East African countries (and ones that don't have English as an official language at that), this may be a case of WP:WORLDVIEW and I would invite dissenting opinions provided they can cite reliable sources with in-depth coverage.

It may also be worth noting that the logo currently included on the page is almost certainly a WP:COPYVIO, as the uploader has claimed that it is their own work while also claiming that they have no conflict of interest with the subject. These claims cannot both be true, and under the premise of good faith I'm inclined to assume the latter is true. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:59, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 01:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the logo should be deleted from Commons and re-uploaded locally (PD-ineligible US only). As to the article, if a company is publicly traded on a major stock exchange (not just pink sheets or something), then it's almost certainly notable. It's not an American company and so it's not necessarily as easy to find English news about it, but it's a publicly traded company with 1600 employees? Yes, that's notable. --B (talk) 12:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:LISTED (part of WP:ORGCRITE), being publicly traded is not immediately grounds for notability. Googling '"RA International " stock analysis' returns some listings that aren't in-depth, and more in-depth coverage from Simply Wall St.^[1], although it is unclear if they are a reliable source. Meanwhile, sources like Reuters^[2] do not have any coverage beyond the price-- their "Analysis" and "News" tabs for the company are totally blank. While I agree that it being a company operating largely outside of the English-speaking world makes finding articles about them more difficult (and would be happy to withdraw the AfD if non-English coverage were provided), we can't simply conclude in the absence of English coverage that it is notable by default. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete coverage of this company was thin prior to it listing on the London Stock Exchange in June 2018. Inevitably as with any IPO, a listing will result in an increase in mentions, including on many sites which collate data and churn it out algorithmically under the guise of a "written news article". A one man hat company who listed on the LSE would also generate articles and subsequent computer generated coverage. RA International itself is also a relatively small company, by exchange standards (£130m) and is listed on the smaller sub-market of the LSE, AIM. Non-notable in my opinion. Uhooep (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2018 (UTC) Delete - Does not meet notability as per WP:ORGCRIT --Jay (talk) 14:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The references in the article are routine coverage of an IPO. The best my own searching turned up was a Forbes article, but it's a contributed piece ("Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own"), and an interview, both of which reduce the weight we would normally give it. It's also more about Soraya Narfeldt than RA International. If this was one of several good sources, it would have some value in a supporting role, but it's far from enough on its own. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORGCRIT.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 17:23, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquake in Zipland[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and has minimal coverage. AmericanAir88^(talk) 03:30, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This does meet the WP:GNG. At one time there were about four urls with significant coverage. But it seems that the stories have been taken off line, from about 12 yeas ago, and they are now useless. But now there look to be less accessible sources: [26] has two sentences on it. Book: "Virtual and Mixed Reality - Systems and Applications: Part 2" has one sentence. Book: "Digital Storytelling: A creator's guide to interactive entertainment" has 4 sentences. Here: [27] there is significant independent content still available. One newspaper still has a significant story online: [28] Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:43, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If there are enough sources, the article is fine.TH1980 (talk) 02:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 09:53, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dolphin Surf Craft[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORGSIG. Other then the fact that the company exists there is no indication of any notability. I can't find any significant coverage other then what is already in the article. If they had invented the surf skis that they sell this would be different but they did not MarnetteD|Talk 02:33, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention that this started as a redirect to List of companies of Australia. I guess it could be returned to that but it isn't mentioned there and I don't know that the company is important enough for the redirect to exist. MarnetteD|Talk 02:44, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 03:04, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ORGSIG and WP:GNG. I can't see anything much besides [29] which is behind a pay wall. Doctorhawkes (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:44, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep True there is not a lot on them but there are these SLSNSW , a supplier, and a manufacturing journal. I suggest that an organisation that is/was a preferred supplier of life saving equipment to a peak public safety body makes them potentially notable, that they do/did, apparently, have a leading edge on other manufacturers, and get into a much broader industry journal make them potentially notable. Aoziwe (talk) 11:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of those references meet the criteria for establishing notability, including those noted above by Aoziwe. Sure, they show the company exists, but there's no indications as to why the company is notable. References fail WP:ORGIND, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 09:53, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clair J. Boyle[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:SOLDIER & significant RS coverage not found. Received one second-highest decoration, Distinguished Service Cross (United States); the rest are third-highest and lower, such as the Silver Star. I've located a brief non-editorial obit in the local press [30], which confirms the dates of birth / death, but that's about it. Primary sources are insufficient for notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 03:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 03:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fail WP:NSOLDIER. No assertion of notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't pass SOLDIER. BLP issues (no source for his death in 1988 - so presume alive) in sourcing. Consistency issues (seems he made 1st lt. per the article). But more importantly than all of the above - simple does not come close to having SIGCOV and passing GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 12:10, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Prelims. Tone 17:24, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prelim exams[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced stub page with seemingly very little (if any) potential for expansion. Its subject is perhaps not significant enough to exist as a good standalone article; a short mention on the Scottish Qualifications Authority page appears enough to cover this relatively small topic. Entranced98 (talk) 00:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 01:35, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:06, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Term is too generic for my liking on this article. Plenty of other schools have "preliminary exams". The generic term should not be specifically about Scottish ones. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 09:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the term is too generic and the term should redirect to the dab page Preliminary examination. Bennv3771 (talk) 13:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Regarding the possibility of merging, the entire article is unreferenced so there is no verifiable content to merge elsewhere anyway. Bennv3771 (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect: Already covered in a broader context at Prelims. AllyD (talk) 13:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I think prelim is a fairly generic term and am not sure that the Scottish ones are notable enough to have their own article (they could probably be covered in other articles about the actual examinations they are preliminary for). Dunarc (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you think that prelims are like PSATs in the U.S., taken a year before SATs? I am not sure that in actual usage it works that way. Where prelims are mid-course exams, it not always the case that there will be an article about the final exams in the courses, in fact I know of no such articles. It seems to me that this is a general thing, that there is angst about taking them or apathy or many other common reactions, that they are a cultural phenomenon in the U.K. and some other places, and worth explaining to non-Brits. --Doncram (talk) 18:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point, but I was not actually thinking of the U.S. example - more the prelims some Universities have. The Scottish prelims, are (or at least used to be), specifically mock versions of the final exam. So a Higher prelim paper would be in the same format as a final Standard Grade and Higher paper (the only difference is the prelim would not include work yet covered). I actually have an issue with some of what the article says as it is unsourced and from a historic certainly does not reflect my experience, or that of other I know, of their operation in the 1990s. Prelims historically did have(and may still) an impact on the final mark in that they were often used as the basis of an appeal against a bad result. For example if someone got a B in a Higher, but the prelim showed a clear A the school would appeal and the grade could be raised (I know several people this happened to). Equally if someone missed the exam due to illness and had a medical certificate the prelim would be taken into account by the SQA, and before that the SEB, and used to award a result. However I think all this could be covered in the generic Prelims and the specific articles such as Standard Grade.Dunarc (talk) 20:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, probably to Prelims, which is found in the disambiguation page mentioned above. Certainly a redirect should be left. --Doncram (talk) 22:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect , delete or merge ?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly merge to article on Prelims - although that article is itself so badly written it needs work done on it. Vorbee (talk) 07:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article was started 12 May 2006, with first sentence "Preliminary Examinations (more commonly known as Prelims) are exams set in Scottish high schools after about two thirds of subject's course being completed, often around December for S4 pupils, and February for S5/ S6 pupils." Note it is an antique article (so wp:PRESERVE? comes into play, at least to save its edit history in a redirect), and that it used the "Prelims" term. It definitely should be merged to the Prelims article, which was started 29 September 2005 and initially covered the exams at Oxford University, but grew to cover other usages. It should have been merged any time from 2006 on! It is a very valid encyclopedic topic, helpful for all American readers of zillions of novels set in the U.K. where "prelims" are mentioned, where the term is hard for yanks like me to decipher from context. I !voted "Merge" above. --Doncram (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Sure, it should be more developed, it should more comprehensively cover usage of the term. That's a reason to tag the article for expansion perhaps but is not a reason to delete. And that's not really a reason not to merge the unsourced Scottish high school usage, to which a "citation needed" tag can be added. Although note a citation is not needed for every assertion in a Wikipedia article, if it is not controversial and is not challenged. Does someone want to assert that "prelims" don't happen in Scotland? --Doncram (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Prelims. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to prelims, nothing much worth merging. Szzuk (talk) 13:35, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:57, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Science House[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A large portion of the article content has existed unsourced for a long time - I was unable to immediately find reliable sources to fix that. Additionally, there is a significant lack of secondary sources for the article topic, thus notability guidelines are not met. BLDM (talk) 23:07, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 00:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very minimal coverage. desmay (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Van Damsel[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a band with no particularly strong claim of notability per WP:NMUSIC and no strong reliable source coverage to carry it. The awards listed here are from local radio stations in a single media market, not national awards that would pass NMUSIC #8, and the chart success claims derive from an uncertified WP:BADCHART (Mediabase), not from the publication (Billboard) that actually qualifies as Canada's notability-making national charts. (There was a cite to Billboard present in the chart table, but it led to the chart history of the unrelated band Dear Rouge, not any chart history of this band — so it was an uncorrected copy-paste fuckup, not a notability-supporting source for Van Damsel.) And the remaining references are almost entirely to blogs and unreliable sources and a smattering of local coverage in their own hometown pennysavers, with no real evidence of WP:GNG-worthy media coverage being shown beyond a single article in Exclaim!.
Literally the only notability claim left here is that they played some concert dates in support of their debut album -- but for a tour to be the notability-maker in and of itself for a band that doesn't pass any other NMUSIC criterion, we would need some evidence that the tour generated ongoing media coverage, such as concert reviews, and not just a one-off calendar list of the tour dates. And the punchline to all of this is that the band then broke up within a matter of weeks, so they have no prospect of getting over any other NMUSIC criterion in the future. Basically, there's not enough quality referencing here to deem them as passing NMUSIC #1, but nothing stated in the article body is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 23:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 00:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A minor showing on a non-major chart and two non-notable awards. The fact the band no longer exists also means that there will be no more chances for notability.Tuzapicabit (talk) 11:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of role-playing game software. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:57, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

E-Tools[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotion for a non-notable software damiens.rf 12:41, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if sources can be found, otherwise redirect to List of role-playing game software. BOZ (talk) 14:46, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

redirect per BOZ. I'm a bit shocked that I can't find any RS covering it--I'm sure I read a fair bit about it when it came out. But nothing is what I've found, so redirect seems like the way to go. Hobit (talk) 06:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 01:28, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would suggest a disamb page as there are many many software with the E-Tools name, eg I found a pdf from the 2002 era which was covering software ('e-security') in another language. Also I did find ArsTechnica, RockPaperShotgun, and other side mentions by doing a custom google search with a time range, but none was substantial in coverage (they were general DnD articles). [31] "popular etools software", [32] [33] [34] Closest I could find was a mention by DnD Insider Magazine ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 09:11, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 17:24, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Thompson (producer)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not seeing or finding any significant coverage. Producers are rarely notable, and executive producers are even less notable. Edwardx (talk) 22:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I want to say keep because if he is the brains behind Bionicle lego toy line then, of course, he is notable but I could find nothing that states this that is not self-published. Freetheangels (talk) 02:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 02:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - producers are almost never notable, because they are so common. I don't see any evidence this person is out of the ordinary. If there are no independent sources, they are not notable anyway. Bearian (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is delete. I have opted to give less weight to the arguments of the apparent meatpuppets. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed up everything[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can only find passing mentions, no real coverage and no carting that I can tell. Fails GNG and NBAND. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NBAND. References are either not independent and reliable, or are trivial. Likely WP:TOOSOON. Jmertel23 (talk) 14:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if the best source I can find is the Daily Mail, then we're not going to able to write a substantial article. Yes, they've got a grassroots following and their videos have been viewed quite a bit, but we really need things to be at the level of Billboard and Rolling Stone coverage before we can write a comprehensive biography. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The Daily Mail article ([35]) is pretty substantial and we might need to have a discussion on whether that rag qualifies as a reliable source. They have also been written up by the certainly reliable Classic Rock Magazine ([36]) and the major newspaper in their hometown ([37]). Those sources can also back up some factual statements in the article that current do not have a reliable source, such as being recognized by Offspring. I have no dispute with anyone voting to delete, and it might be WP:TOOSOON for an article about their few actual musical achievements, but they have gotten noticed for their unconventional busking success. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in the event that the article is kept, it will have to be moved to a new title with proper capitalization. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we'd already reached consensus on the Mail. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me, but assume good faith and just provide the link. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link that I provided in the article after you said provide it in good faith but someone went behind me after that and deleted it again: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5698229/Meet-Australias-hard-rocking-Hanson-brothers.html --Derricklasaga (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's plenty of stuff about why we can't cite the Mail all over t'interweb - see here and here for starters. My all-time favourite "WTF" moment from the Mail is : "Using Facebook causes cancer". And I'm fed up with them smacking down Gina Miller every five minutes. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The main basis of creating an article for a band is due to them being noteworthy. I have provided proof that clearly shows Metallica, The Scorpions, Foo Figthers, No Doubt, Everclear, Robert Deleo (Stone Temple Pilots), Matt Sorum (Guns n Roses, Velvet Revolver), Live & The Offspring (the last of which is scheduled to perform with Mixed Up Everything in Melbourne, Australia in the future) all of which have shared Mixed Up Everythings covers with approval on their facebook/twitter pages and expressed their praise and approval. They have been written up by Classic Rock Magazine, The Herald Sun, plus multiple others. They have released their own debut album which classic rock magazine has mentioned and is available (physically or digitally) through Amazon, iTunes and others. The album was produced in a studio that has worked and is working with multiple other bands and they are on tour right now throughout The Czech Republic, Germany & The Netherlands supporting their album and playing live festivals, clubs and events. Their youtube channel as nearly 20 million views and they are at this point on the brink of exploding big. And What is your acceptable argument for stating that the Daily Mail is not reliable and independent? Provide proof for your argument with references that back up your claim. Provide proof of who exactly within the Daily Mail has personal connections with the band, that has something invested with the band in any way. Because without proving that, you cannot claim The Daily Mail is connected to the story or unreliable. And if you want to see my references for the facts i have states here then just refer to the articles references. And to add to this, according to the "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" MEETS NOTE 1: Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1] This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries (Classic Rock Magazine, The Melbourne Herald Sun), NOTE 4: Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country. (consult their website & the reference i provided in the article) & NOTE 7: Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. (all of the media coverage i have provided here in mention and in the articles references points this out). So when you respond again with the claim that the article should fail please provide references that irrefutably proves WHY The Daily Mail is not acceptable AND why The Herald Sun Newspaper is not acceptable.
Delete. Fails WP:NBAND. I can't see that as reliable, independent coverage. Doctorhawkes (talk) 02:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And do you see The Herald Sun as not reliable either? It is the highest circulating newspaper in Australia with weekday readership of 1.5 million and it's website receives 6.6 million visits per month.^[3]. --Derricklasaga (talk) 00:32, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Triplejunearthed.com is the website for the Australian Government owned radio station Triple J and it is a subsidiary for the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)^[4]

Weak Keep The band does seem to have created a big and growing name for themselves, with a lot of famous artists approving of their work publicly. Doesn't seem as though the people who are voting to delete it are following guidelines as they do meet multiple criteria of media coverage, radio play and what with being on tour (why doesn't classic rock magazine, the herald sun, triple j radio count?)--Angelic Purple (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Angelic Purple (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It's not a question of whether sources are reliable or not; broadsheet newspapers are generally reliable, but they also print a huge amount of stories and unless a group has sustained coverage across many years, and has prominent pieces in the likes of Rolling Stone and Billboard chart hits, it's difficult to write a neutral and balanced article that takes no sides and doesn't sound like a puff piece for the band. If it was practical to write a detailed article, we wouldn't need to be scrambling around for 3-year old news pieces and Facebook / YouTube links; we'd have a gamut of Rolling Stone and Guardian pieces we could easily pull from to write a well-balanced biography, rounded off with the various chart stats. Sure, if the group has a top ten hit, then they deserve an article here, but as it is, I think it's too soon to have something. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Mixed Up Everything have an undeniable following. The references all seem valid. And to Ritchie, who said "Sure, if the group has a top ten hit", I saw that they had their song 'Counterfeit' go to no.1 on the Triple J Australian charts for a week, just a month after the release of their album.^[5]. It's a keeper from me. --Sloth man01 (talk) 10:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Sloth man01 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

For Australian charts, you need an Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA) citation. See Wikipedia:Record charts/Sourcing guide/Australia for more information. Do you know that this single was a hit in the ARIA charts? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I note that we have two newcomers voting here. I'm suspecting either sockpuppets or meatpuppets. Doctorhawkes (talk) 11:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given they're all commenting as "weak keep" (which implies it's a marginal case and they wouldn't mind too much if the article was deleted, whereas the arguments are very much "strong keep"), that would seem to be the case. I don't think sockpuppetry is at play here; I think the AfD has been broadcast elsewhere on the net. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the band meets criteria's 1, 4 & 7 of the list: have been written up by multiple media publications and websites, are currently on an international tour, they have a #1 hit on official Australian radio and the band wants the article. Where is the basis left to delete this article? Even suggesting it go to a vote at this point violates the criteria of a band or musical group being eligible for having an article. And for the record, I am a Wikipedia contributor and have over 100 edits andthree articles so far in the last month. I may be new but this qualifies me to be counted as a contributor.--Derricklasaga (talk) 02:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 02:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There is a smattering of coverage in reliable sources (see also [38]), but I don't feel there's enough to support an article at this stage. No objection to it being moved to draft for people to keep working on it for a while, but if they don't progress further they wouldn't really justify having an encyclopedia article. --Michig (talk) 06:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Nick Grimshaw. Tone 17:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Grimshaw (radio show)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced article, with some vaguely but not blatantly advertorial undertones, about an eponymous radio show with no strong claim of standalone notability as a separate topic from its host. As always, if a radio show doesn't really have a name per se, but rather its "name" is just the name of the person who hosts it because it's fundamentally just "dude who hosts standard daypart" rather than "actual thing that exists in its own right independently of dude and would continue to exist even if dude got fired or died", then the show doesn't get an automatic inclusion freebie in the absence of reliable source coverage about the show to properly support that it actually has independent notability as a separate topic from the host. Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to Nick Grimshaw. That the show has apparently not even premiered yet is hard evidence against notability (is it September 3rd in the UK yet?): any coverage would be merely routine announcements and verification of existence. If this program wins major awards, or attracts significant non-routine coverage, or other evidence of why it should be in an encyclopedia, then perhaps a separate article might be warranted. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:10, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

merge. Not worth a standalone article. Szzuk (talk) 13:31, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:57, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agustín Laje[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet notability. Sources here are self-published, authored by the subject of the article himself or non-reliable. There are some COI/POV-pusher editors doing cross-wiki spam persistently on this, the Spanish article had to be deleted 4 times (first two after AfD consultation) [39]. MarioGom (talk) 17:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Laje is an important published writer and conferencist. It is notable enough for any reasonable standard. If we are talking about the ideas of a political scientist, his own writings seem to be a good place to start. The big objection I intuitively see is not procedural but political. This is censorship masquerading as WP policies. Frasznik (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neither being a published writer or a conferencist is enough to met Wikipedia notability policies. If it is notable enough by any reasonable standard, you just need to find reliable sources that support such claim. With respect to your intuition, I would kindly ask you to keep it to yourself, specially since it is already a few editors with experience that have questioned the notability of this article, both in English and Spanish Wikipedia. --MarioGom (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith is also a general principle of law, at least in civil law traditions. Censors can perfectly do their job on the basis of believing the material to be harmful for the prospective readers. Thus, even assuming good faith is not enough to easily dismiss a censorship accusation. My article is independent from the past Spanish versions, I am not the same person of the article, and the sources are reliable given that 1) career and personal political views of a political scientist cannot be dissociated as if they appertained to different universes, 2) Prensa Republicana is managed by Nicolas Marquez, not Laje. That means that such sources are NOT self-published. Frasznik (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing the issue of Prensa Republicana, Nicolas Marquez is not considered an independent source per WP:INDY: Interest in a topic becomes vested when the source (the author, the publisher, etc.) develops any financial or legal relationship to the topic. Being co-authors of a book that is central to Laje's career violates this premise of independence. --_signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prensa Republicana links removed and properly replaced. I doubt YouTube links can be supressed as they are primary sources. What is left to be done? Frasznik (talk) 19:37, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The issue at hand is demonstrating the notability of the subject through extensive coverage in reliable sources. Currently, the sources on the article are: Laje's Facebook page (not reliable), Razon + Fe (not reliable), YaTeCuento La Pampa (not reliable), La Nueva (possibly reliable, but a single abridged interview announcing a talk isn't particularly notable), Forbes Mexico (would be reliable, except that Laje wrote the article), YouTube (not reliable, wikipedia doesn't think very highly of primary sources), InfoBae articles written by Laje (not reliable), ACI Prensa (not reliable), Infonews (reliability unclear), La Izquierda Diario (not reliable), Cosecha Roja (not reliable), Disidentia (not reliable), Disidencias (not reliable), William J. Perry Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies Alumni Spotlight (not independent, not notable). While some of these sources may be sufficient for substantiating claims made in the article (for example, we can take Laje at his word vis-a-vis how he self-identifies politically; similarly, left-wing publications are sufficient for citing what left-wing critics think of him), they don't demonstrate notability of the subject.

In order to demonstrate notability, you need to either find more coverage in more widely-read, more neutral sources (I'm not super familiar with Argentinian news reporting, but based on Google results El Pais or La Nacion would potentially be acceptable Argentinian sources; an international publication would be even better), or demonstrate that Laje's work is heavily cited in academic literature (Google Scholar currently has *El libro negro de la nueva izquierda* sitting at 2 citations, not exactly heavily cited). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:00, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:10, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability has not been demonstrated, sources cited cannot be considered independent. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:30, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are independent, the problem is that they do not come from Bolshevik sites or books, as Rosguill and MarioGom would like them to. Frasznik (talk) 15:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet notability as per WP:BIO --Jay (talk) 14:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recycle Track Systems[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An advertorially-toned page on an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Created by Special:Contributions/JacobMoore with no other contributions outside this topic. The coverage is WP:SPIP or future looking, or both, such as from Forbes.com/sites which is their non-editorial area: Recycle Track Systems Wants To Be The Next Uber For Garbage Forbes.com/sites-Feb 7, 2018. Part of a promotional walled garden which also includes Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregory Lettieri (2nd nomination). K.e.coffman (talk) 03:30, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 03:44, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Clearly a self-promotional article, especially considering the edit history of article creator. WP:RS sources do exist but they all also read like advertising.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 04:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Michig (talk) 06:40, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ufa Eastern Toll Road[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article consists entirely of original research. The single reference discusses virtually nothing included in the article. Nothing to indicate this road passes notability criteria, and searches turned up virtually nothing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per nom; the road is apparently under construction and not sourced well enough, and the article is original research. Once the road is built and on maps/etc., no prejudice against re-creation. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the native name brings up substantial coverage, such as here How automobile bridges are built in Russia. I updated the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The third most complex and expensive Russian bridge project (34 billion rubles) - the so-called Eastern Exit - is the largest infrastructure project in Bashkortostan. The transport junction includes a 2500-meter-long bridge, a 50-meter bridge across Lake Dolgoe, a 1250-meter-long tunnel, a 14-km bypass road and a junction on the M5 highway. The road and the flyover will be four-lane, the tunnel provides 2 roads with two lanes each. The project once again confirms that everything new is a well-forgotten old.

The idea of building a tunnel was discussed back in the Soviet era, but construction began only in 1992, but due to the intermittent financing the work was constantly interrupted. (...) The Eastern Exit will significantly relieve the city's roads and provide residents with the most convenient and quick access to the federal road M5 "Ural". The project is scheduled for commissioning in 2022.

StreetDrone[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a resurection of a previous delete - please check the original for changes. In its current form it bears many of the hallmarks of paid/COI editing; in-body external links, an undue focus on services, prices and press release material. I can’t open all the links. Please check for copy/paste issues. Many thanks. Edaham (talk) 02:19, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination was proposed by User:Edaham. I'm just fixing the formatting. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 05:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 05:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've looked at the previously deleted version, and it is not sufficiently similar to qualify for speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sujata Choudhary[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Essentially no inline citations, citations all go to Hindi language articles that appear to have a strong bias toward Gandhi hagiography. It could be a fault of Google Translate, but the articles were incredibly difficult to parse and seemed to mention Dr. Choudhary incidentally as some sort of expert but do not go into any depth. Additional google searches have returned nothing. Does not pass WP:GNG

I can't read Hindi, so per WP:WORLDVIEW, I invite people to dissent if they can find reliable sources about the subject. However, if the subject is fould be notable, I still feel that it needs to be draftified due to the apparent unreliable nature of the current citations provided. Rosguill^talk 06:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 07:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 07:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 07:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Maku Khanate. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:12, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bayat dynasty[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced. Couldn't find anything about this family. They seem to be not that much notable. Keivan.f^Talk 06:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Maku Khanate. They seem quite notable (if we had a presumable notability criteria for dynasties they would pass), however given that this is an un-sourced single sentence stub, and Maku Khanate mainly contains the dynasty - a redirect (nothing worth merging, otherwise merge) makes sense.Icewhiz (talk) 12:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to 150 personae non gratae of Turkey. Redirecting to list article due to the absence of significant coverage about him outside the context of the list. That being said, no prejudice against this being restored as a full article if sources are located and the content is expanded. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kayserili Şaban Ağa[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced and trivial. The subject does not seem to be notable. Keivan.f^Talk 05:52, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If he was important enough to be considered one of the 150 personae non gratae of Turkey then he was clearly a notable personage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - probably is notable. Lots of Turkish language and some German language hits - though mainly in snippets. Unable to ascertain currently if he's only mentioned in relation to the list, or much beyond that.Icewhiz (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the argument of Necrothesp and the level of coverage he has received. James500 (talk) 08:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:00, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 150 personae non gratae of Turkey where the subject is mentioned. Should sources materialise, they could first be added there. I was unable to find anything substantive, and we should not be having completely unsourced articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the person is notable and the article only needs sources. Anatoliatheo (talk) 13:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 150 personae non gratae of Turkey, per K.e.coffman's suggestion. Possibly notable, but redirect until somebody decides to develop it and add sources.--Mojo Hand (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 150 personae non gratae of Turkey, probably not notable since the mentions are all "in passing", and likely WP:1E, WP:BLP1E. --Bejnar (talk) 21:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:51, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance to Support Islam[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. The only reliable source on the page is Enab Baladi, which doesn't mention the phrase "Alliance to Support Islam". Googling the phrase returns the the Wikipedia page for Guardians of Religion Organization as the highest result because of content added to that article by the creator of this article. ~~Possible WP:HOAX~~. Rosguill^talk 07:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Kyle Orton blog [41] does meet RS under WP:SPS. Orton's work has been published in the International Business Times [42] and other reliable publications. [43] David O. Johnson (talk) 08:48, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. However, upon reviewing the content on the Kyle Orton blog, and in the additional source that you added since this was listed for deletion, there isn't any mention of an "Alliance to Support Islam". The Kyle Orton blog refers to an "Alliance for Supporting Islam", and other sources refer to it by its Arabic name, Hilf Nusrat al-Islam. I no longer believe that this is a hoax, but if the result of this AfD is "keep" I would suggest moving the article to rename it per WP:COMMONNAME. As for the deletion discussion, I would like to see what more editors have to say. Sources appear to be reliable, but it's unclear to me whether they are really significant coverage of the alliance, and this article could potentially run afoul of WP:NOTNEWS. Rosguill^talk 01:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:19, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:19, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:50, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: insufficient reliable sources to justify a stand-alone article. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It fails GNG. Besides, I don't see any need for this stub (in its current state) to be included in the encyclopedia. Dial911 (talk) 23:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 09:53, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ekaterina Nosik[edit]

The significance of the actress is not shown. Links do not convince.--RTY9099 (talk) 09:53, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 September 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:12, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appeared to have had a significant role in Дочки-матери, but not much else, so fails WP:NACTOR. Bondegezou (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Public Image Ltd. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Jones[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Unable to locate any significant biographical details in secondary sources. No indication of awards or charted songs. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:21, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:48, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:48, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Public Image Ltd. Subject is not independently notable; references cited are about the group. Anything he has been involved with outside of the band is not supported by significant coverage in reliable sources. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:04, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Public Image. There is only one source in the article that even approaches significant coverage, and even that one is doubtful. An extended search for sources didn't find anything more.Jacona (talk) 10:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hasat al Bidiyah[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

If it ever did exist, it doesn't now. No source for this 'settlement' in the first place. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:19, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:19, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:19, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Useless uncited three-word article of dubious accuracy. Softlavender (talk) 10:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:03, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hayat, Sharjah[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No current town of Hayat in Sharjah. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Useless uncited three-word article of dubious accuracy. Softlavender (talk) 10:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:03, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could not find any evidence of its existence online, nor any further information about it. Not verifiable and fails WP:GEOLAND. EclipseDude (talk) 04:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rafa'[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is currently no Sharjah settlement called Rafa'. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nomination hints that it is a former settlement. We cover former settlements. --Doncram (talk) 22:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no intention to hint about former notability or existence. There's no source cited to show Rafa' ever existed and it certainly doesn't now. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does not "hint" anything. It states out right "Rafa' is a settlement in Sharjah, United Arab Emirates", without any proof whatsoever. Softlavender (talk) 10:51, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Useless uncited one-sentence article/claim of dubious accuracy. Softlavender (talk) 10:51, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:03, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete, can't find it. Szzuk (talk) 20:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reference, no content and cant find the place --Jay (talk) 14:38, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oh, this might be quite funny. It's just struck me that there is every chance this actually refers to Al Rifa'a,, which is actually where I live. If so, it still deserves deletion as it's a residential block in coastal Northern Sharjah and totally not notable. Except that I live here, clearly... (PS: Rifa'a is on the West Coast of Sharjah, this place was pinned in Khor Fakkan on the East, hence it didn't spring to mind initially) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:45, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sahanah[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No modern settlement exists. Unsourced. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Useless uncited three-word article of dubious accuracy. Softlavender (talk) 10:56, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:03, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Subtropical Storm Candelaria[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An event that is not notable enough for wikipedia. The article is also poorly written and contains few sources. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 17:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:53, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:53, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of secondary schools in Singapore. Per WP:CHEAP and WP:ATD -- RoySmith (talk) 20:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Insworld Institute[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability in WP:GNG. Unable to find any media coverage or reliable sources on the institute. -- AquaDTRS (talk) 18:57, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I noticed that the institute is listed in a travel guide, but that doesn't seem particularly reliable as you can pay to have your company listed in one. -- AquaDTRS (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or weak redirect to List of schools in Singapore or List of secondary schools in Singapore It's a Private Education Institution (PEI), registered as such on the Committee for Private Education government website: [44] It could go to Education in Singapore as one of the PEI's listed there, but other than the guide book it doesn't have any news articles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects are cheap. Szzuk (talk) 20:04, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of secondary schools in Singapore. ParticipantObserver (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails notability in WP:GNG --Jay (talk) 14:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:23, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Mental Health Anti-Stigma Campaign[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced. Doesnt seem to exist now. No details about the campaign itself, just about the problem. Rathfelder (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychiatry-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 23:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep As long as good sources can be added.TH1980 (talk) 02:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The topic of this article is a discontinued public service advertising campaign by a US government agency, from 10 years ago. See for example [45]. I don't think government public service advertising campaigns are generally notable, unless they are of exceptional/lasting cultural impact, and I don't think this one was. I think the underlying concept of mental illness stigma is notable, and it is unfortunate there is no article on it yet (although there is Social_stigma#People_with_mental_disorders) and also Mental_disorder#Stigma). But, the notability of the underlying concept doesn't automatically make a government advertising campaign against it notable. (@TH1980:, I'm not sure if your "Weak Keep" is about the campaign or the concept?) SJK (talk) 10:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no refs in the article, google returning nothing much, the campaign appears to have stopped and had no longevity. Szzuk (talk) 13:24, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amma Makkal Munnetra Kazhagam[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amma Makkal Munnetra Kazhagam, which concluded that the founding of a political party is not in itself notable until the party has coverage for contesting elections. The sources in this page are dated March, from the founding of the party, and so are no improvement from when the previous article was deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I Know the article was deleted but when i saw the Article for a similar reginol political party Makkal Needhi Maiam never faced the threat of deletion, I decided to create this one again. Tamilnadu politics is dominated by DMK and AIADMK for decades, but after the demise of both AIADMK and DMK chiefs this year, the state politics has suddenly changed and nobody knows future direction. both these new political parties are going to play a very important role in upcoming General Elections and 2021 state elections and with by-poll win founder dhinakaran has displayed some support for this outfit. If this article is deleted again, it will have to be recreated again because party actually has the potential to garner some votes in the currently open political field of TN Politics... thanks --Adamstraw99 (talk) 05:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adamstraw99, see WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OSE.Best, ∯WBG^converse 08:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we can recreate it again if/when it becomes notable. SportingFlyer talk 06:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable political party with coverage only due to its founder. Fails WP:NOTINHERITED. Arguments related to WP:FUTURE should be avoided. See a recent Afd Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Awaaz-e-Punjab that also ended up delete, for the same reasons. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:42, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There's clear consensus not to keep this as a stand alone article, but opinion is split on whether to turn it into a dab page or just delete it completely. I'm going to go ahead and delete it, but if anybody wants to recreate the title as a dab page, that's fine. If you want the old text to work from, ping me and I can userfy it for you. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zakazukha[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dicdef plus examples of a Russian slang word with nearly no independent usage in English. In fact, the article is incorrect: The Russian term refers to various ethically questionable acts done upon order (zakaz): contract murder, lobbying, politically-motivated actions, paid media coverage (not only for praise as the current article claims, but for smear as well), etc. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge to Advertorial~~. Book source cover this topic, which in my opinion is essentially a term, rather than a simple dictionary definition. However, the overall depth of coverage about the topic may not quite warrant a standalone article. The Advertorial article has no mention of the occurrence of zakazukha in Russia, and a merge is a functional alternative to deletion as per WP:ATD-M. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Struck my !vote above. See below in the discussion for my revised !vote.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Advertorial is an advert editorial. Zakazukha is anything: anything published, anything else questionable (hence derogatory gist of the term) performed upon order. However after reading "advertorial", I see it covers things which are similar topics but named differently in different countries: cash for comment (Australia), paid news (India), so "Russia" section will fit well. And its lede must be slightly rewritten to broaden the topic to cover all sneaky advertising.
Therefore the proper solution would be Merge/Disambig, with disambig being:

Zakazukha is a Russian-language informal term which may refer to: Advertorial/Paid propaganda (missing article)^[6]/Contract murder/Lobbying/Reverse lobbying?? - the latter term I invented because I do not know the English term where politicians press businesses and other organizations to do something to further some political goals. Is this concept recognized? Staszek Lem (talk) 16:38, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But I am still leaning to deletion, because this term is very rarely used in English and always with dicdef-explanation, ie., it is just an embellishment with Russian flavor, not an independent word of English. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Staszek Lem: Note that this source states, "these are called advertorials in English". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 23:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Advertorial or Merge/Disamb as proposed above Delete -- no strong secondary sources for this. Those in the article are just WP:OR. I will note that there is a company with that name from Google search. If secondary sources are provided, feel free to ping me with them. I would not even support a merge unless I see something definitive. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC) [revised --David Tornheim (talk) 11:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)][revised 17:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)][reply]

@David Tornheim: Check out: [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51]. Note that this source states, "these are called advertorials in English", hence my merge !vote above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Northamerica1000 Thanks. I have changed my vote accordingly. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, How did you find those? I didn't see them in the Google search, but maybe I didn't look deep enough. Or did you use Google Scholar or some other search engine? --David Tornheim (talk) 11:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim: From the Google Books link atop in the Find sources search template. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read my explanation at all? Of course, these [i.e., things called "zakazukha" in particular source] are called "advertorials". But there are other^[6] meanings of the word. Hence my suggestion of disambig. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

@Staszek Lem: Perhaps I'm missing something, but the source you provided (p. 119, p. 120) has no mention of the term referring to contract murder, lobbying or reverse lobbying at all. Nor do any of the sources I posted above. As such, I feel that a disambiguation page using the terms you posit above would be entirely inaccurate, and not based upon what reliable sources state at all. Sorry, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Staszek Lem: At present, I agree with Northamerica1000. I see no evidence of the alternate definition. Is this based on your own knowledge as a Russian speaker? If so, I understand how it might be annoying arguing with someone like me who has very little knowledge of the Russian language, and I am not going to disagree with your own experience of the language and use of the term being superior to mine. Nevertheless, I feel compelled to delete the disamb option if it is to include a definition not found in the secondary WP:RS based on our sourcing rules. We can't rely on personal knowledge for an alternate definition.

Right now I am increasingly inclined for keep based on North's sources. Why? This is where I tend to agree more with Stasek: I know a fair amount of German and watch many diverse foreign language films with subtitles. I have studied quite a bit of literature, including major works originally written in a foreign language translated into English, where volumes of text are written about the importance of translation, the difficulty of translating a poem, and major emphasis on the importance and difficulty of translating particular words that have no equivalent in English. My overall feeling is that most (or nearly all) words have not exact equivalent (in a foreign language) or even an exact synonym. The simple fact that they are pronounced differently and have a different history slightly changes their meaning and the feeling about them to the listener. Each word has its unique existence in terms of connotations and denotations. So, a direct link to advertorial may overstate its similarity to advertorial (as mentioned by Stasez). But at present it does seem like the RS seems to equate the two.

A last question is whether we really need a term like this. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia rather than a dictionary, and my sense what this article is providing is a dictionary definition. That makes me incline towards delete. I might have to see if I can find reference to this in the WP:PAG. Any thoughts on this issue? --David Tornheim (talk) 17:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim: I see no evidence - there is another one ("paid propaganda") in the ref I provided (twice). Also, you can find more in Russian sources. 18:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Look up заказуха in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

@Northamerica1000: contract murder is easily googled in russian dictionaries, even in wiktionary. So we have three verifiable meanings, enough for disambig. In fact, the meaning "contract murder" is historically the first one. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And here is the fourth meaning I called "reverse lobbying" - " действия по заказу неких политических сил." ("actions upon an order of certain political forces") Staszek Lem (talk) 18:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And the award-winning book Zakazukha by a reasonably notable writer Oleg Dudintzev [52]. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And a yet another meaning : collection of kompromat upon an order. [53] Staszek Lem (talk) 18:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate and merge when functional. (I have struck my initial !vote above). Thanks Staszek Lem for the additional information. The only term I'm hesitant about is "Reverse lobbying", as 1) there is no article for this, and 2) it can likely be covered as a disambiguation to lobbying. Also, Staszek Lem, you stated "But I am still leaning to deletion" in a comment above. Would you be willing to modify this stance per the additional information you have provided just above? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning to agree with this based on the recent sources provided by Staszek Lem, which I have not had a chance to review. I am curious what your thoughts are on why we would need an entry that functions more like a dictionary than an encyclopedia? Staszek had not answered that question either. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was leaning to delete this page, but after some thought I suggested to make it a disambig page. In order to have this, we have the term used in the pages we disambiguate to. We can easily have it in Advertorial#Russia. This term may also be squeezed into Zakazukha. I can quickly write a stub for Oleg Dudintzev, so we have 3 pages for dab. Later one may easily write Contract killing in Russia (search: Заказные убийства): there is info about their surge in 1990s of "wild capitalism" in Russia, with gradual decline when mafia-style business of Russian oligarchs proceeded to legalization.

In other words, it makes sense to disambig to Russia-specific topics. We already have weird (IMO) pages kompromat, maskirovka, etc. for concepts which exist in the wider world, but somehow without one-word English term. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Staszek Lem: Please see my comment below about my concern that a disamb page would act as little more than a translation. If Zakazukha (as advertorial) turns about to be notable Russia-specific variation (which I think it is), then I would prefer that there is either a full article or a subheading in an existing article that describes that uniqueness. I would not support redirects or disamb if there is there is no subheading for unique use of the term at the destination. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:39, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question (especially to Staszek Lem and Northamerica1000) How do you address WP:NOT#DICTIONARY? Is there something more to the reason to keep that goes beyond it being a dictionary definition? --David Tornheim (talk) 21:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Articles such as The Anatomy of Zakazukha, which appears to be centered around the topic, suggests that this is more of a term than a simple definition. It's a a snippet view, so can't access the entire article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So then you are saying that the activity described by the term is what is notable rather than the term itself? If there is something unique (and notable) about the activity, then I think that justifies an article (or subheading in an existing article). I believe that is the case based on the WP:RS so far provided. The uniqueness may be also related to where the term is used.

The disamb page with the various definitions seems to me too much like a dictionary entry, and what's worse it is for a foreign term, making it like a translation page. I don't see a need to have translation redirects for every foreign language word to every English article--foreign language have their own Wikipedias for that. As an example, the German word for table (Tisch) does not have a redirect to Table. Does that make sense? Maybe we really need some WP:PAG to talk about this kind of issue about foreign words. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:20, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Useless. I dont see any reason why this article exist in the first place. It is like a small section in Bribery --Jay (talk) 14:45, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject does not possess evident and independent notability. (Compare with "Baksheesh".) Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -The Gnome (talk) 09:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 09:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LiftDNA[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An advertorially-toned page on an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Acquired by another company with questionable notability itself. Created by Special:Contributions/Alana1818 with no other contributions outside this topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:53, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:47, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:47, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH . Kpg jhp jm 12:41, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. This AfD did not generate a lot of discussion but the general consensus was to keep the article for the notability of the topic. Improvements have been made in the article and more improvements were suggested in the discussion and in templates at the article. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 08:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Associativity-based routing[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Highly-promotional article, and many of the most-useful bits of information are uncited. Some of the citations are to articles that seem to be about mobile networking in general, rather than this protocol in particular. AfD isn't cleanup, but... SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This thing has plenty of hits on Google Scholar, and the papers by the inventor have tons of citations. I've done some preliminary cleanup and tried to cull most of the primary source stuff from the article, but more work definitely needs to be done. It's salvageable, though. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 17:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the research. I wasn't sure how to chase this down properly. I'll keep an eye out in the hopes that I can withdraw this before closing.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SarekOfVulcan:I'm not fully convinced it should be a keep. I think we should also consider a merge to Wireless_ad_hoc_network. I haven't read enough of the article/sources or know enough about the topic. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 18:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Same here. Hopefully someone with less COI and more networking knowledge will drop in and opine. (Abr1993? Really? Nobody picked that up when the article was being created?) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This work is foundational for modern mesh networks such as Zigbee. A lot of the works cited in the article are by the inventor but these are referenced frequently by others and there are also adequate independent sources available. ~Kvng (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 00:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.